Dismissed

Sri S L Rajanna v. Sri Ramegowda

Karnataka HC29 May 2023WP/2937/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Writ Petition challenging the rejection of an application for land restitution was dismissed. The Court held that a delay of 44 years made the application unmaintainable under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, as it was not filed within a reasonable time.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed for want of merits and due to gross delay.

Sri S L Rajanna Vs Sri Ramegowda — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 2937 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 2937 OF 2022 (SCST)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. S. L. RAJANNA, S/O SRI. LATE. LAKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT SINGATAGERE VILLAGE, NITTUR POST, SALAGAME HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 219.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. M. J. REVANNA SIDDESH., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. RAMEGOWDA, S/O SRI. SANNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT SINGATAGERE VILLAGE, NITTUR POST, SALAGAME HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 219.

¶15

SRI. NINGE GOWDA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS,

¶16

2.(a). SMT. PUTTALAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE. SRI. NINGE GOWDA,

¶17

¶18

WP No. 2937 of 2022

¶19

AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

¶20

2.(b). SRI. ERE GOWDA, S/O LATE. SRI. NINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶21

SRI. RAMACHANDRA, S/O LATE. SRI. NINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.4(a) TO 4(c) ARE R/AT HONNAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, NITTUR POST, SALAGAME HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 219.

¶22

SRI. H. R. RAMESH, S/O SRI. H. S. RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT SINGATAGERE VILLAGE, NITTUR POST, SALAGAME HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 219.

¶23

SRI. H. R. LAKSHMEESHA, S/O SRI. H. S. RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT SINGATAGERE VILLAGE, NITTUR POST, SALAGAME HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 219.

¶24

SMT. THIMMAMMA, W/O SRI. HANUMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT HONNAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶25

¶26

WP No. 2937 of 2022

¶27

NITTUR POST, SALAGAME HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 219.

¶28

The ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HASSAN SUB DIVISION, RANGOLI HALLA, HASSAN, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶29

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, B M ROAD, HASSAN, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA S ANGADI., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, R3, R4, R2(B) & R2CC;

¶32

SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYANA., HCGP FOR R6 & 7)

¶33

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE FOR NECESSARY WRIT BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.11.2021 PASSED BY THE R7(ANNEXURE-J) AND ETC.,

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

WP No. 2937 of 2022

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The captioned writ petition is filed by the grandson of the original grantee feeling aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by respondent No.7 - Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure - J.

¶39

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.

¶40

The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

¶41

Lakshmi, while interpreting Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of

¶42

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶43

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶44

¶45

WP No. 2937 of 2022

¶46

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 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

¶47

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶48

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶49

¶50

WP No. 2937 of 2022

¶51

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.

¶52

In the instance case, the petition land was

¶53

granted to the petitioner's grandfather on 08.11.1950 totally measuring to an extent of 19 acres 27 guntas (including 12 guntas of kharab). After the demise of the original grantee, it appears his sons effected partition and divided the granted land into two shares. One of the sons

¶54

7 - WP No. 2937 of 2022

¶55

who was allotted 9 acres of land sold the portion of land in favour of one Thimmamma measuring 1 acre 20 guntas of total extent measuring 9 acres under the registered sale deed dated 13.04.1971. The legal heir of the original grantee further sold another extent of 1 guntas in favour of one Ningegowda under registered sale deed dated 27.04.1973. Thimmamma, who acquired title to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas, in turn sold it in favour of Ningegowda under registered sale deed dated 06.02.1984. The said Ningegowda in turn sold it to the respondent herein, measuring 1 acre 20 guntas. The first sale is admittedly in the year 1971, and the petition is filed in 2015. Therefore, this Court would find that there is delay of 44 years. Respondent No.6-Assistant Commissioner could not have invoked the provisions of Section 5 of the PTCL Act, 1978 as there was a gross delay of 44 years. Respondent No.7-Deputy Commissioner has rightly reversed the findings.

¶56

¶57

WP No. 2937 of 2022

¶58

In the present case on hand, there is a delay of 44 years in initiating action. The authorities below have

¶59

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

¶60

¶61

WP No. 2937 of 2022

¶62

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. The Deputy Commissioner has taken cognizance of gross delay and has rightly rejected the petition seeking restoration of land.

¶63

The principles laid down by the Apex Court in Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav⁵ [(2018) 12 SCC 527] is also squarely applicable to the present case on hand. The Apex Court 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,

¶64

5 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶65

10 -

¶66

WP No. 2937 of 2022

¶67

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.

¶68

In the light of dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra, the order passed by respondent No.7-Deputy Commissioner does not suffer from any illegality. The order for restitution and resumption of land in favour of the grantee's family passed by respondent No.6-Assistant Commissioner runs contrary

¶69

11 -

¶70

WP No. 2937 of 2022

¶71

to the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the respondent No.7Deputy Commissioner. The grounds urged in the writ petition as well as in the additional statement of facts cannot be entertained, and this Court cannot take cognizance of those facts as they are found to be totally irrelevant in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶72

ORDER

¶73

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

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

HDK CT:STK

Sri S L Rajanna v. Sri Ramegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S L Rajanna v. Sri Ramegowda

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

Amruthraj Vs the Principal

Mr. Manjunath Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Hanumanthamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Y Krishnappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Rangaswamy Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mr. N.Narasimha Murthy Vs Deputy Commissioner