Dismissed

Sri Ramanji v. The Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC30 May 2023WP/2736/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by legal heirs seeking restoration of land under the PTCL Act. The Court held that a 14-year delay rendered the application non-maintainable due to gross delay and laches, applying precedents where long unexplained delay bars relief.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed as it is devoid of merits due to gross delay.

Sri Ramanji Vs The Assistant Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 2736 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 2736 OF 2022 (SC-ST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI RAMANJI S/O GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, KOOTHANAHALLI VILLAGE, MANDIKAL HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR-562101

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. V ANAND, ADVOCATE-ABSENT)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHICKBALLAPUR SUB DIVISION CHICKBALLAPUR-562101.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHICKBALLAPUR-562101.

¶15

SRI VENKATESHAPPA S/O VENKATAPPA,

¶16

R/AT PARESANDRA VILLAGE, MANDIKAL HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-562101.

¶17

SRI VENKATESHAPPA S/O LATE TIRUMALA VENKATARAYAPPA

¶18

¶19

WP No. 2736 of 2022

¶20

R/AT THUMAKUNTE VILLAGE, MANDIKAL HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR-562101.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1 & 2; SRI.S.B.MADHU, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 20.12.2021 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT AT CHIKKABALLAPUR VIDE ANNXB AND THEREBY CONFIRM THE ORDERS PASSED BY R-1 VIDE ANNX-A.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The captioned writ petition is filed by the legal heirs of original grantee questioning the order of respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner who has allowed the appeal filed by the purchaser and has thereby rejected the petition filed by the petitioner herein seeking restoration of land under Section 5 of the the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act").

¶27

3 - WP No. 2736 of 2022

¶28

Before I advert to the facts of the present case,

¶29

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.

¶30

The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

¶31

Lakshmi, while interpreting Section 5 of the "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

¶32

the case of Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and

¶33

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶34

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶35

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶36

¶37

WP No. 2736 of 2022

¶38

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 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

¶39

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶40

¶41

WP No. 2736 of 2022

¶42

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.

¶43

In the instant case, it is evident that the land in question was granted to the grand father of petitioner herein vide order dated 17.08.1974. The grantee during his life time alienated the petition land in favour of respondent No.3 under registered sale deed dated 16.05.1996. Respondent No.3, in turn, has sold it to the present respondent No.4 under registered sale deed dated 6.12.2004. After the demise of the original grantee, petitioner who is his grand son filed a petition seeking restoration on 12.4.2010. The Assistant Commissioner has allowed the petition and ordered for restoration. On an appeal by respondent No.4-purchaser, the Deputy Commissioner taking note of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi was

¶44

¶45

WP No. 2736 of 2022

¶46

of the view that the grand son of original grantee could not have maintained the petition after lapse of 14 years and has accordingly, allowed the appeal.

¶47

In the present case on hand, there is a delay of 14 years in initiating action. The Assistant 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 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

¶48

¶49

WP No. 2736 of 2022

¶50

stipulated. The law on the point of delay and laches to invoke the provisions of PTCL Act is well settled by catena of judgments.

¶51

In the present case on hand, I would find that the action is grossly delayed and taken beyond reasonable time. This Court would also find that the land was alienated several times during this period, obviously with an impression that vendor had saleable title. In that view of the matter, the application filed by petitioner seeking resumption and restoration of granted land on the ground that the transfer is in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act is not at all maintainable since the same is not filed within a reasonable period.

¶52

The principles laid down by the Apex Court in

¶53

Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav⁵ [(2018)

¶54

12 SCC 527] is also squarely applicable to the present case on hand as there are subsequent alienations and petition land has changed several hands. The Apex Court

¶55

5 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶56

¶57

WP No. 2736 of 2022

¶58

was of the view that if there is inordinate, unexplained and unjustified delay on the part of the applicant in seeking restoration of the land, such inaction would create a right in favour of other party. Therefore, the Apex Court was of the view that time must be reckoned reasonably, not only in order to preserve the rights and advantages which party possesses but equally to protect each party from losses he ought not to suffer. The registered sale deeds are public documents and after verifying the public documents, if citizens enter into further transaction believing such public documents to be genuine, the subsequent alienations cannot be set at naught by showing leniency to aggrieved party who has slept over his rights, if rights are crystallized on account of inaction on the part of the original grantee. The said application has to be rejected on this count also.

¶59

In the light of the discussions made supra, if

¶60

the original grantee has alienated the petition land during his life time on 16.5.1986, the petition seeking restoration,

¶61

¶62

WP No. 2736 of 2022

¶63

which is filed after lapse of 14 years could not have been entertained by the Assistant Commissioner. There is gross delay of 14 years in seeking restoration of land. The order passed by the first respondent-Assistant Commissioner is contrary to the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments cited supra. The order of the Deputy Commissioner is strictly in consonance with the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi. The order under challenge does not suffer from any infirmities.

¶64

In view of the discussions made supra, I proceed to pass the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i) The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed;

¶67

ALB

¶68

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

Sri Ramanji v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramanji v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri S L Rajanna Vs Sri Ramegowda

Sri Y Krishnappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Rangaswamy Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Abey Antony Vs the Secretary the Karnataka Nursing and Paramedical Sciences Education (Regulation) Authority

Sri Yarlagadda Venkateshwaralu Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Vinutha M v Vs Pramod H S