The High Court of Karnataka quashed an order of resumption passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The Court held that the application was barred by an inordinate delay of 37 years and was not maintainable since the original grant had been cancelled due to alienation.
The impugned order of resumption passed by the Respondent No.2 is set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:25875 WP No. 28555 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 28555 OF 2016 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
SMT. MARY LILY, D/O LATE. C.R. ARLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.15, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, OPP: HOTEL MERIDEN, BENGLAURU - 560 052.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAKASH T HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2023:KHC:25875 WP No. 28555 of 2016
DEVANAHALLI.
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS,
SL. NO.6(b) & 6(c) ARE MINORS HENCE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN & MOTHER SMT. CHAMUNDI.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.23, PUTTAPPANA GUDI STREET, BOVI COLONY, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE - 562 110.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6 (A-C))
NC: 2023:KHC:25875 WP No. 28555 of 2016
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.26.4.2016 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEX-A. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION AND EXECUTION OF THE ORDER DTD.26.4.2016 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXA AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO,TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE W.P, BY DISPENSING WITH PRIOR NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENTS AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed by the children of the purchaser, assailing the order of resumption passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner, who has allowed
the appeal filed by the legal heirs of the original grantee, Lakshmamma, and ordered for resumption of the land in question, in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee.
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.
1 (2020) 14 SCC 232
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.
the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time.
2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC
3 (2018) 12 SCC 527
4 (2020) 14 SCC 236
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 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
NC: 2023:KHC:25875 WP No. 28555 of 2016
of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 is affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.16/2021.
Lakshmamma, in violation of the conditions imposed in the grant, alienated the granted land measuring 4 acres in favour of the petitioner's father under a registered sale deed dated 28.02.1969. Since there was alienation by the original grantee, Lakshmamma, the competent authority cancelled the grant vide order dated 23.10.1978, which is questioned in the connected writ petition in W.P.No.7101/2013.
NC: 2023:KHC:25875 WP No. 28555 of 2016
proceedings that she suffered an order at the hands of competent authority and that the grant was cancelled, never chose to question the order during her life time. If the grant order is cancelled by the competent authority, this Court is unable to understand how respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner could have ordered for resumption of the land in question.
dismissed on two counts. Firstly, there is an inordinate delay of 37 years. In the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment cited supra, the application seeking resumption has to be out-rightly rejected only on the ground of delay without examining the other aspects relating to the resumption of land in question. 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 stipulated. The law on the point of delay and laches to invoke the provisions of PTCL Act is well settled by catena of judgments.
7. Secondly, if the grant order itself is cancelled by
the authority and having regard to the fact that the cancellation of grant was on account of alienation by Lakshmamma in favour of the petitioner's father, the application seeking resumption is not at all maintainable. The respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner has rightly rejected the application. The respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner was not justified in invoking Section 11 of the PTCL Act. Section 11 of the PTCL act cannot be applied to the cases where there is inordinate delay. Therefore, the order of respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner is found to be contrary to the law laid down by the Apex
NC: 2023:KHC:25875 WP No. 28555 of 2016
Court in the judgment cited supra. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A is not sustainable and the same is liable to be quashed.
following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed;
(ii) The impugned order passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A is hereby set aside.
The pending interlocutory applications, if any, does
not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
HDK CT: AVB
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Deputy Commissioner was justified in entertaining a resumption application ignoring an inordinate delay of 37 years.
Whether a resumption application is maintainable if the original grant order has been cancelled on account of alienation.
Whether Section 11 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 can be applied in cases of inordinate delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of KarnatakaExplained¶38
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi. vs. State of Karnataka and another (1) (2020) 14 SCC 232 · Who else cites this
Vivek M. Hinduja vs. M. AswathaExplained¶39
Vivek M. Hinduja vs. M. Aswatha 2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC
Chhedi Lal Yadav vs. Hari Kishore YadavRelied on¶43
Chhedi Lal Yadav vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (3) (2018) 12 SCC 527 · Who else cites this
Ningappa vs. Deputy Commissioner and othersRelied on¶43
Ningappa vs. Deputy Commissioner and others (4) (2020) 14 SCC 236 · Who else cites this
W.P. No. 50446 of 2012Relied on¶49
W.P.No.50446 of 2012 (confirmed in W.A.No.16/2021 disposed of on 05.04.2021)
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Mary Lily
State of Karnataka
The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District
The Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub Division
The Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk
Shri. Gopal and Smt. Lakshmamma
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
