Allowed

S Venkataswamy v. Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC25 Jul 2023WP/3292/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a land purchaser challenging orders of resumption passed against him. The Court noted the land was sold via public auction, invoking a precedent that such grants are not for depressed classes. It quashed the resumption orders on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, failure to examine the grant nature, and inordinate delay of 18 years.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-M and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure N are set aside.

S Venkataswamy Vs Deputy Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:25796 WP No. 3292 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 3292 OF 2022 (SCST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

S. VENKATASWAMY, S/O LATE HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/AT SANGONDAHALLI VILLAGE, AVANI HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. N. S. BHAT., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB DIVISION, AT KOLAR - 563 101.

¶15

SRI. S. M. JAYANNA, S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O SANGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, AVANI HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. VENKATA SATYANARAYANA., HCGP FOR R1 AND 2; SRI. K. P. BHUVAN., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION QUASH THE IMPUGNED

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:25796 WP No. 3292 of 2022

¶20

ORDER DATED 28.09.2021 IN CASE NO.PTCL/28/2018 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR. THE R1 AS PER ANNEXURE-M AND ALSO TO QUASH AN ORDER DATED 28.06.2018 IN CASE PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR R2 AS PER ANNEXURE-N AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DISMISS THE PETITION L AND D FILED BY R3 IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.60/60/P1 MEASURING 3-0-0, SITUATED AT SANGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, AVANI HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The captioned petition is filed by the purchaser assailing the concurrent orders passed by respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner, who has ordered for resumption, and the same is confirmed by respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner, vide Annexures N and M.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the concurrent orders has placed on record the grant certificate issued by the authority under Form No.1.

¶25

The controversy relating to the issuance of grant certificates under Form No.1 is dealt and given a quietus by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the reported judgment rendered in the case of B.K.Muniraju .vs.

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:25796 WP No. 3292 of 2022

¶27

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

¶28

of B.K.Muniraju held as under:

¶29

" 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."

¶30

In the light of law laid down by the Apex Court

¶31

in the case of B.K.Muniraju, the material on record clearly demonstrates that the grantee participated in a public auction and the sale deed was executed on deposit of the entire auction price. Therefore, in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment cited supra, the land in question does not fall within the definition of a

¶32

1 (2008) 4 SCC 451

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:25796 WP No. 3292 of 2022

¶34

granted land; therefore, the provisions of the PTCL Act are not at all applicable. If the grant certificate issued under Form No.1 is a title document, the Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain an application under the provisions of the PTCL Act. If provisions are not applicable, the Assistant Commissioner ought not to have exercised jurisdiction. Therefore, the order of resumption, which is one without jurisdiction, is non est in law. On this count also the application is liable to be rejected.

¶35

Be that as it may. Even on the ground of inordinate delay of 18 years, the application seeking resumption filed by respondent No.3 is liable to be rejected. The Apex Court in the cases of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and another² and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha³ . has held that if resumption is not sought within a reasonable period, the authorities have to out rightly rejected the application seeking resumption only on the ground of delay. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment has held

¶36

2 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶37

3 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:25796 WP No. 3292 of 2022

¶39

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.

¶40

For the foregoing reasons, the order of resumption passed by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner suffers from serious infirmities. Both authorities have not even taken pains to examine the nature of the grant. The Assistant

¶41

Commissioner ought to have looked into the grant certificate before proceeding to exercise the power conferred on him under the provisions of the PTCL Act. Therefore, the order passed by the Assistant

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:25796 WP No. 3292 of 2022

¶43

Commissioner suffers from serious infirmities and illegality and is liable to be set aside by this Court. The Deputy Commissioner has also not examined the material on record. Therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is also liable to be set aside.

¶44

For the reasons stated supra, I proceed to pass

¶45

the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(i) The writ petition is allowed ;

¶48

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

¶49

The pending interlocutory applications, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT:STK

S Venkataswamy v. Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Venkataswamy v. 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

Pakeerappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Prasavi a N Vs Sri Lokesh N

Lakshmidevamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Anatha Sevashrama Trust (R) Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Jayalakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Schedule Caste and Tribes Welfare Association (R) Vs State of Karnataka