Dismissed

Smt Rathnamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2023WP/2690/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by daughters seeking restoration of Scheduled Caste land. The court held that a 14-year delay in filing the application rendered the petition untenable, citing principles of laches and the requirement to act within a reasonable time under the PTCL Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed as being devoid of merits due to gross delay of 14 years.

Smt Rathnamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 2690 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 2690 OF 2022 (SC-ST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT RATHNAMMA D/O CHIKKAMUNIGA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶9

R/O GOOGUTTAHALLI VILLAGE DODDANALLALA POST - 562 114 JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶10

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A

¶11

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT.RAJAMMA D/O CHIKKAMUNIGA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O GOOGUTTAHALLI VILLAGE DODDANALLALA POST - 562 114 JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI

¶13

HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. SURESHA M, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 1^ST FLOOR, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI - 562 110

¶18

¶19

WP No. 2690 of 2022

¶20

DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶21

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA - 561 203 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶22

SRI. K G KODANDARAM S/O. V GIDDANNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.648, NO.35, 23^RD MAIN ROAD 21^ST CROSS, 2^ND SECTOR HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU 560035

¶23

SRI. BASAPPA S/O. DODDAMARAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶24

SMT. BASAMMA W/O LATE DODDA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶25

SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE DODDA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶26

SRI. BHADRAPPA S/O LATE DODDA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶27

SRI. B M RAMESH S/O LATE DODDA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶28

SRI. BHADRAPPA S/O LATE DODDA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶29

¶30

WP No. 2690 of 2022

¶31

SRI. M. MUNIYAPPA SO. MUNISAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶32

RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 10 ARE R/O BELLIKERE VILLAGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK - 560087 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI.R.V.S.NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.V.VINAY GIRI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.3; SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R.1 AND R.2)

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.10.2021 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CASE NO.LND.SC/ST-9/2021 VIDE ANNEX-J AND THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2020 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE NO.PTCL-SR(HO)15/2017 VIDE ANNX-H.

¶36

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The captioned writ petition is filed by the daughters of the original grantee questioning the concurrent orders

¶39

of the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner and

¶40

¶41

WP No. 2690 of 2022

¶42

respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner, who have rejected the petition filed under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act") seeking restoration of the granted lands on the ground that the petition is moved by the legal heir of original grantee after lapse of 14 years.

¶43

Before I advert to the facts of the present case,

¶44

it would be useful to refer to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court on this issue in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi

¶45

vs. State of Karnataka and another¹ and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha² . It would be also useful to refer to the judgment rendered by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446 of 2012, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.16/2021 disposed of on 05.04.2021.

¶46

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶47

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶48

5 - WP No. 2690 of 2022

¶49

3. The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

¶50

Lakshmi, while interpreting Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act") had an occasion to examine the point of limitation wherein interested person can file appropriate application seeking annulment of sale as void under Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The Apex Court by reiterating the principles laid down in Chhedi Lal Yadav vs. Hari Kishore Yadav³ and also in the case of Ningappa vs. Deputy Commissioner and others⁴ has held that where Statute did not prescribe the period of limitation, the provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. The Apex Court was of the view that the authorities have to give due regard to the period of time within which action has to be taken by the interested person. The Apex Court was of the view that it is well within the discretion of the competent authorities not to annul the alienations where there is

¶51

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶52

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶53

¶54

WP No. 2690 of 2022

¶55

inordinate delay in initiating action by the interested persons under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 disposed of on 24.1.2020 declined to entertain the application filed by the original grantee where there was a delay of ten years. This Court was of the view that the application itself was not maintainable since the same was not filed within a reasonable time. While recording the finding, this Court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ningappa vs. Deputy Commissioner and others, where the Apex Court had declined to entertain the application which was submitted after nine years seeking restoration of land under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 is affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.16/2021.

¶56

In the instant case, the petition land was granted

¶57

to the petitioners' father Sri.Chikkamuniga on 15.05.1942. It appears that the granted land was the subject matter of

¶58

¶59

WP No. 2690 of 2022

¶60

partition. In the grantee's family, the grantee had three brothers and the petition land was allotted to Dodda Muniyappa and Basappa by way of family arrangements. It is not in dispute that in the said family arrangements, 10 guntas of granted land was also allotted to Muniswamappa. After the death of Dodda Muniyappa, his widow and son have alienated 1 acre 8 guntas of land under the registered sale deed dated 27.02.2004. The said Basappa along with his son together have alienated 19 guntas of land under registered sale deed dated 28.11.2003.

¶61

In the instant case, there is a delay of 14 years in

¶62

seeking restoration and restitution of the granted land. In the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra, the petitioners, who are claiming to be legal heirs of original grantee, have not brought in action within a reasonable period as indicated in the land marks judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, legal heirs of original grantee are found

¶63

¶64

WP No. 2690 of 2022

¶65

to be not diligent as diligence is woefully lacking. The Authorities have concurrently held that the petition cannot be maintained as there is gross delay of 14 years. The rejection of petition by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner and the order passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner confirming the order of the respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner is strictly in consonance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶66

In the present case on hand, there is a delay of 14 years in initiating action. The authorities below have rightly examined the delay and laches in moving the application. The judgments cited supra clearly indicates that on the ground of gross delay and laches, the application made by the grantee or by the legal heirs under Section 5(2) of the PTCL Act requires to be rejected. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment has held that where statute does not provide for limitation, the authorities and State must act consciously and if the

¶67

¶68

WP No. 2690 of 2022

¶69

process of invoking the provisions of statute is delayed and is initiated after long lapse of time, the delay by itself would act as an impediment. Thus, without exception and coming across various rules of law, the Apex Court has categorically stated the law in respect of exercise of power/jurisdiction under statute where no limitation is stipulated. The law on the point of delay and laches to invoke the provisions of PTCL Act is well settled by catena of judgments cited supra.

¶70