Allowed

Smt Jayamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Jul 2023WP/27214/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of Deputy Commissioner allowing restoration of land under the PTCL Act due to gross delay of 16 years and laches by the interested person, citing Apex Court precedents on reasonable time grounds.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed and the order of the Deputy Commissioner allowing restoration is set aside.

Smt Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:24730 WP No. 27214 of 2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 27214 OF 2014 (SCST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. JAYAMMA , W/O JAYARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT MITTEGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 113.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. L M RAMAIAH GOWDA., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA , BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MULTISTORIED BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB - DIVISION, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:24730 WP No. 27214 of 2014

¶18

M. VENKATASWAMY,

¶19

S/O KUTHOORAPPA @ MUNIYAPPA,

¶20

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.246, GUTTEPALYA, IST BLOCK, LALBAGH SIDDAPURA, JAYANAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 011.

¶21

NAGARAJU,

¶22

S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT NO.9, SAMPIGIHALLI, BANNERUGHATTA, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 083.

¶23

SMT. LAKSHMI M., W/O RAJU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.22, MURALI COLONY, JAYANAGARA, 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU, 3RD BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 011.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATA SATYANARAYANA., HCGP FOR R1 TO 3; SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. RASHEED KHAN., ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO 6)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED.21.5.2014 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN CASE R.A.SC.ST 39/2006-07 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:24730 WP No. 27214 of 2014

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The captioned petition is filed by the purchaser feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, who allowed the appeal under Section 5(a) of the PTCL Act and has reversed the order passed by the respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, annulled the sale, and ordered for the restoration of the land.

¶31

Before I advert to the facts of the present case, it would be useful to refer to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court on this issue in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .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.

¶32

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶33

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:24730 WP No. 27214 of 2014

¶35

The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

¶36

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

¶37

the competent authorities not to annul the alienations

¶38

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶39

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶40

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:24730 WP No. 27214 of 2014

¶41

where there is inordinate delay in initiating action by the interested persons under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The co-ordinate 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.

¶42

In the instance case, it is borne out from the records that the land bearing Sy.No.75 measuring 4 acres was granted in favour of the father of respondent No.4,

¶43

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:24730 WP No. 27214 of 2014

¶44

namely, Muniyappa @Kothurappa, on 20.06.1963 and saguvali chit was issued on 09.07.1963. The original grantee executed an agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner on 26.09.1978. Based on an agreement to sell, respondent No.4 sold the petition land in favour of the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 18.08.1982. Application seeking restoration was filed in 1998.

¶45

In the present case on hand, there is a delay of 16 years in initiating action. The Deputy Commissioner has not 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 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 process of invoking the provisions of statute is delayed and is initiated after long lapse of time, the delay by itself

¶46

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:24730 WP No. 27214 of 2014

¶47

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.

¶48

In the instance case there is a delay of 16 years. I would find that diligence is woefully lacking. Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner rejected the petition on the premise that the agreement to sell was executed prior to the commencement of the PTCL Act and therefore, the provisions of the PTCL Act are not applicable to the present transaction. Respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, has reversed and ordered for restoration, ignoring the inordinate delay of 16 years in seeking restoration. The impugned order passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner is clearly found to be in contravention of the law laid down by the Apex Court in

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:24730 WP No. 27214 of 2014

¶50

¶51

the cases of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek M.

¶52

Hinduja. Therefore, the order of restoration passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner is liable to be set aside .

¶53