Allowed

Sri. Shivarudrappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2023WP/30578/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed a writ petition quashing Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner orders restoring land granted to aScheduled Caste family. The restoration under the PTCL Act was denied due to gross 19-year delay violating reasonable time principles.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; orders passed by Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner allowing and confirming restoration are set aside.

Sri. Shivarudrappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 30578 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 30578 OF 2018 (SC-ST)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. SHIVARUDRAPPA S/O. LATE DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDENT OF CHIRADONI VILLAGE, BASAVAPATTANA-1 HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK-577 213, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI.V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, P.B. ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577 001.

¶11

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION, P.B. ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577 001.

¶13

THE TAHASILDAR CHANNAGIRI TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, CHANAGIRI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213.

¶14

SMT. KARIBASAMMA W/O. LATE CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶15

SMT. SUBHADRAMMA D/O. LATE CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶16

¶17

WP No. 30578 of 2018

¶18

SMT. BHAGYAMMA D/O. LATE CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶19

SRI. BASAVARAJA S/O. LATE CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶20

SMT. MEENAKSHI D/O. LATE CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶21

SMT. ASHA D/O. LATE CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶22

R-4 TO R9 ARE R/O. SHANTHINAGARA, HARANAHALLY VILLAGE-577 201, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶23

SMT. GANGAMMA W/O. LATE DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶24

SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O. LATE DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶25

SRI. MALLIKAPPA S/O. LATE DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶26

SRI. SHIVARUDRAPPA S/O. LATE DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶27

R-10 TO R-13 ARE RESIDENT OF CHIRADONI VILLAGE, BASAVAPATTANA-1 HOBLI,

¶28

¶29

WP No. 30578 of 2018

¶30

CHANNAGIRI TALUK-577 213, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI.VENKAT SATHYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; V/O DATED 26.02.2020, NOTICE TO R4 TO R13 IS D/W.; SRI.S.V.PRAKASH, ADV., FOR R4 TO R6, R8 TO R10 & C/R7;)

¶33

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.06.2018 BEARING NO.PTCL/CR-09/2016-17, PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGARE, VIDE ANNEXURE-E, THEREBY ALLOW THE APPEAL BEARING NO.PTCLRA/CR-09/2016-17, FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND R10 TO R13, VIDE ANNEXURE-B TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.07.2016, PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT, THE AC, DAVANAGERE, PASSED IN CASE NO.PTCL: CR: 19/2014-15 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶34

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

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The captioned writ petition is filed by the purchaser feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner ordering for restoration of petition land and the order passed by the respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner.

¶37

4 - WP No. 30578 of 2018

¶38

2. Before I advert to the facts of the present case,

¶39

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

3. 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 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

¶42

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶43

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶44

¶45

WP No. 30578 of 2018

¶46

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 disposed of on 24.1.2020 declined to entertain the application filed by the original grantee where there was a

¶47

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

¶48

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶49

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶50

¶51

WP No. 30578 of 2018

¶52

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.

¶53

In the present case on hand, the petition land was granted to one Chandrappa for upset price on 23.05.1974 and there was a restriction for alienation for a period of 15 years. It appears that grantee sold the land to one Doddabasappa under registered sale deed dated 19.09.1991. The legal heirs of original grantee have filed petition seeking restoration of land by filing an application under Section 4 of the PTCL Act. 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

¶54

¶55

WP No. 30578 of 2018

¶56

PTCL Act. The said order is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner.

¶57

In the present case on hand, there is a delay of 19 years in initiating action. The authorities below have 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(2) 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

¶58

¶59

WP No. 30578 of 2018

¶60

laches to invoke the provisions of PTCL Act is well settled by catena of judgments.

¶61

In the instant case, diligence is woefully lacking. There is a gross delay of 19 years in initiating action. Therefore, the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner was not justified in entertaining the application and the order for restoration is passed without taking cognizance of inordinate delay of 19 years. The order of restoration is confirmed by the first respondent/Deputy Commissioner. The LRs of original grantee are not entitled for restoration of the petition land as the material on record also indicates that third party rights are created.

¶62

For the reasons stated supra, the order passed by the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner and the order passed by the respondent No.1/Deputy

¶63

Commissioner are liable to be quashed.

¶64

Hence, I pass the following:

¶65

¶66

WP No. 30578 of 2018

¶67

ORDER

¶68

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶69

(ii) The order passed by the respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-E and the order passed by the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-A are hereby set aside.

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

NC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Sri. Shivarudrappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Shivarudrappa 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Acquina Veenus Rebello Vs Mr Sharan Antony Pinto

Smt. Kadiramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Shantamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Rathnamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mr. a.C.Basavaraja Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Sangamesh Vs the State of Karnataka