Dismissed

Lakshmidevamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC24 Jul 2023WP/3034/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking restoration of land under the PTCL Act. The Court upheld a lower order rejecting the petition due to gross delay of 36 years and held that the land was not subject to restriction alienation as the grant certificate was a title document.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Lakshmidevamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:25600 WP No. 3034 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 3034 OF 2022 (SCST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT KYATHAGONDANNA HALLI, MEDIGESHI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT - 577 101.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. M.B.RYAKHA., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKURU DISTRICT, TUMKURU - 577 101.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MADHUGIRI TALUK, MADHUGIRI - 572 132.

¶15

SMT. MANGAMMA, W/O LATE D. NARASAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶16

PRASANAKUMARA REDDY C., S/O LATE D. NARASAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶17

CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY C R.,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:25600 WP No. 3034 of 2022

¶20

S/O LATE D. NARASEREDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶21

NAGAMANI, D/O LATE D. NARASAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶22

RESPONDENTS NO. 3 TO 6 ARE, R/AT DINNAMIDAPALYAM, GOVINDHARAJAPURAM, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT, ANDRAPRADESH - 515 001.

¶23

T. NAGARAJAPPA, S/O SINGANAHALLI TIMAIAHA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶24

T. VENKATACHALAYA, S/O SINGANAHALLI TIMAIAHA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶25

BOTH ARE R/AT, BIDHARAKERE KAVALA (CHANDRABAVI), MIDAGESI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. VENKATA SATYANARAYANA., HCGP FOR R1 TO R2; SRI. NARASIMHA RAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO 7)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.12.2021 PASSED BY THE R1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN CASE NO.PTCL.NO.10/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.,

¶29

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

¶30

- 3 - NC: 2023:KHC:25600 WP No. 3034 of 2022

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The captioned petition is filed by the daughter-in-law of the original grantee, assailing the order of respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner, who allowed the appeal and reversed the order of resumption passed by respondent No.2/Assistant commissioner.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶34

learned counsel for the contesting respondents/purchasers and learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶35

As rightly pointed out by the learned HCGP, the

¶36

original grantee had participated in a public auction and purchased the land in question. The grant certificate is issued on deposit of the entire auction price and the same is issued under Form No.1. The question has to whether grant certificate issued under Form No.1 is a title document or it has to be treated as a granted land is no more res intergra and the same is given quietus by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.K.Muniraju .vs.

¶37

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:25600 WP No. 3034 of 2022

¶38

State of Karnataka¹ . The Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the said controversy and upholding the judgment of the High Court, held that, mainly because a document is styled as a certificate of grant, that in itself will not lead to an inference that the grant was intended for a depressed class. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

¶39

of B.K.Muniraju held as under:

¶40

" The document in question has been styled as "certificate of grant". In order to know the real nature of the document, one has to look into the recitals of the document and not the title of the document. The intention is to be gathered from recitals in the deed, conduct of the parties and evidence on record. It is settled law that question of construction of a document is to be decided by finding out intention of the executant, firstly, from a comprehensive reading of the terms of the document itself, and then, by looking into, to the extent permissible, the prevailing circumstances which persuaded the author of the document to execute it. With a view to ascertain the nature of a transaction, the document has to be read as a whole. A sentence or term used may not be determinative of real nature of transaction."

¶41

4. The restoration petition filed by the present

¶42

petitioner is also liable to be rejected on the ground of delay. The first sale was by the widow of the original grantee in 1968. The widow of the original grantee has

¶43

1 (2008) 4 SCC 451

¶44

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:25600 WP No. 3034 of 2022

¶45

sold the entire extent of land under registered sale deeds dated 06.06.1968 in favour of two persons, namely, Vaddara Peddanna, to an extend of 2 acres 28 guntas out of 5 acres 28 guntas and in favour of Ratana Shetty, to an extent of 2 acres 32 guntas. The said Ratana Sheety in turn sold to one Narasa Reddy, who is the husband of respondent No.3. Vaddarapeddanna has alienated his extent in favour of Hanumakka, who is the mother of respondents No.7 and 8. The present petitioner initiated action by filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in 2004-05. The Assistant Commissioner, after notifying the parties, has allowed the application and ordered for restoration on the ground that alienation contravenes the provisions of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The Deputy Commissioner reversed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and allowed the appeal filed by the respondents.

¶46

In the present case on hand there is delay of 36 years. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti

¶47

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:25600 WP No. 3034 of 2022

¶48

Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and another²

¶49

and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha³ has 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. Even on this point of inordinate delay, the application is not maintainable.

¶50

2 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶51

3 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶52

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:25600 WP No. 3034 of 2022

¶53

The principles laid down by the Apex Court in Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav⁴ [(2018) 12 SCC 527] is also squarely applicable to the present case on hand there are series of transactions which date back to 1968. After the demise of original grantee, the widow of original grantee sold the petition land in 1968.

¶54

The purchaser has further meddled with the property and finally, respondents 3 to 8 have purchased the subjectmatter of the petition land. 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

¶55

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

¶56

4 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶57

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:25600 WP No. 3034 of 2022

¶58

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 discussion made supra, this Court is of the view that, in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.K.Muniraju .vs. State of Karnataka , the provisions of the PTCL Act are not at all applicable to the present case on hand. The authorities have no jurisdiction to hold an enquiry in regard to alienations made in respect of land where a title document is issued under Form No.1. The Assistant Commissioner erred in entertaining the application filed by the petitioner. Though the Deputy Commissioner has not taken cognizance of the nature of the grant in the present case on hand, however, proceeded to reverse the order of restoration by allowing the appeal filed by the purchasers.

¶60

NC: 2023:KHC:25600 WP No. 3034 of 2022

¶61

¶62

I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The resumption application is liable to be dismissed on three grounds, which are indicated supra.

¶63

In view of discussion made supra, I proceed to

¶64

pass the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i) The writ petition is devoid of merits and

¶67

accordingly, stands dismissed;

¶68

The pending interlocutory applications, if any, does

¶69

not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

HDK CT:STK

Lakshmidevamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmidevamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Nayak M Vs Svc Co-Operative Bank Limited

Karavali Ayurvedic Medical College Hospital and Research Centre Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science

Sri Alevuru Premraj Kini Vs the State of Karnataka

Pakeerappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Prasavi a N Vs Sri Lokesh N

Sri Munikrishna Vs State of Karnataka