Allowed

Sri a Thimmaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC24 May 2023WP/33088/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed by a purchaser disputing the ordering of land restoration. The Court held that an application seeking annulment of a sale under the PTCL Act filed after a 25-year delay was barred by gross laches and unreasonable time, despite the absence of a specific limitation period in the statute.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 18.07.2018 of the Deputy Commissioner and 18.06.2013 of the Assistant Commissioner are set aside and the writ petition is allowed.

Sri a Thimmaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 33088 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 33088 OF 2018 (SC-ST)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI A THIMMAIAH S/O LATE AJJAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HINDASAKATTE

¶8

MAJURE, SEEGEHATTI VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK-577311 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B M, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA-577501

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION CHITRADURGA-577501.

¶15

A RANGAPPA

¶16

S/O PALLA NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS (RESPONDENT NO.4 TREATED AS LEGAL REPRESENTIVE AS DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.3 AS PER ORDER DTD: 17.3.2023)

¶17

¶18

WP No. 33088 of 2018

¶19

SRI PALLA NAYAKA S/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶20

RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF HINDASAKATTE MAJURE, SEEGEHATTI VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK-577311 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1-R2; SRI.K.SURESH DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R4;

¶23

V/O DTD: 28/1/2021, R3 IS DEAD, R4 IS LEGAL REP OF DECEASED R3)

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE

¶25

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 IN CASE NO.SCPTL[A]-8/2-13-14 DTD: 18.7.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 CASE NO.SCPTL/HYR/6/10-11 DTD:18.6.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶26

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

¶27

3 - WP No. 33088 of 2018

¶28

ORDER

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶32

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶33

¶34

WP No. 33088 of 2018

¶35

3. The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

¶36

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 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

¶37

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶38

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶39

¶40

WP No. 33088 of 2018

¶41

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 of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 is affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.16/2021.

¶42

In the instant case, the land in question was granted to the father of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the year 1910. The legal heirs of the original grantee sold the

¶43

¶44

WP No. 33088 of 2018

¶45

petition land in favour of the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 16.09.1985. Having alienated the petition land, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted an application to the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner in 2010. The respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner has allowed the application and ordered for resumption of the petition land in favour of the grantee. The said order is confirmed by the respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner.

¶46

In the present case on hand, there is a delay of 25 years in initiating action and therefore, the order passed by the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner is contrary to the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra. 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 of the PTCL Act requires to be rejected. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment has

¶47

¶48

WP No. 33088 of 2018

¶49

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.

¶50

In the instant case, diligence is woefully lacking. There is a gross delay of 25 years in initiating action. Therefore, the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner was not justified in entertaining the application. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not entitled for restoration of the petition land as the material on record also indicates that third party right is created.

¶51

¶52

WP No. 33088 of 2018

¶53

7. For the reasons stated supra, the order passed

¶54

by the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner and the order passed by the respondent No.1/Deputy

¶55

Commissioner are liable to be quashed.

¶56

Hence, I pass the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶59

(ii) The order dated 18.07.2018 passed by the respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A and the order dated 18.06.2013 passed by the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner vide AnnexureB are hereby set aside;

¶60

(iii) The pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Sri a Thimmaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri a Thimmaiah 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

Dr Sunil Hegde Vs State of Karnataka

Sri C B Manjunath Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Arpitha Vidya Nikethana Higher Primary School Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Shanthamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Karunakar Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Krishna Sheregar Vs State of Karnataka