Allowed

Sri Sachidananda Murthy v. The Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2023WP/3497/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition to quash orders restoring land to the family of the original grantee. The Court held that a 15-year delay in seeking restoration, combined with the creation of third-party rights via a Will and relinquishment deed, justified rejecting the petition under the PTCL Act. The validity of the Will was deemed outside the scope of the quasi-judicial authority.

What did the court decide?

The orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner ordering restoration of land were set aside. Pending applications were disposed off.

Sri Sachidananda Murthy Vs The Assistant Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:22899 WP No. 3497 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 3497 OF 2022 (SC-ST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SACHIDANANDA MURTHY S/O LATE A HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O DHARMASHREE NILAYA MISSION COMPOUND BESIDE CHINMAYA HOSPITAL KUVEMPU ROAD SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. R GOPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201

¶15

M K BALADEVKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RETIRED IAS OFFICER HOSAMANE EXTENSION SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201

¶16

- 2 - NC: 2023:KHC:22899 WP No. 3497 of 2022

¶17

DR H R RAJESHWARI DEVI D/O LATE A HANUMANTHAPPA W/O DR. H V DAYANANDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS VENLOCK HOSPITAL MANGALORE-575001

¶18

H GEETHANJALI D/O LATE A HANUMANTHAPPA W/O S.R. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O "DHARMASHREE NILAYA" MISSION COMPOUND BESIDE CHINMAYA HOSPITAL KUVEMPU ROAD SHIVAMOGGA - 577201

¶19

H RAJANI D/O LATE A HANUMANTHAPPA W/O A.K. NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O DHARMASHREE NILAYA MISSION COMPOUND BESIDE CHINMAYA HOSPITAL KUVEMPU ROAD SHIVAMOGGA - 577201

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R.1 AND R.2; SRI.MAHESH R.D, ADVOCATE A/W SRI.SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R.3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.11.2.2022 PASSED BY R-1 IN CASE NO.PTCL CR

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:22899 WP No. 3497 of 2022

¶24

4/2017-18 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO THE ORDER DTD.3.1.2022 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN SC/ST 4/2020 VIDE ANNEXUER-B AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing concurrent orders passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner and respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner in ordering for restoration of the land on the ground that the bequeath made by the original grantee - Sarojamma is in contravention of the provisions under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act") and consequently, restoration of the granted land is ordered in favour of the grantees' family.

¶28

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶29

petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and learned HCGP.

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:22899 WP No. 3497 of 2022

¶31

In the instant case, the petitioner claimed

¶32

that one Sarojamma, who is the original grantee, has bequeathed the land in favour of A.Hanumanthappa, who is the father of the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 6 under registered Will dated 20.08.2001. The Testator Sarojamma died on 17.06.2002. The petitioner's name was mutated based on the Will in the revenue records and after the death of A.Hanumanthappa, the registered relinquishment deed is executed by respondent Nos.4 to 6 in favour of the petitioner in 2012. Respondent No.3, who claims to be son of original grantee - Sarojamma, has filed a petition seeking restoration of the land.

¶33

The definition of transfer under Section 3(e) of the "PTCL Act", 1968 also includes testamentary dispossession. If Sarojamma died in the year 2002, her son could not have maintained a restoration petition in 2017 after lapse of 15 years. It is forthcoming from the records that respondent No.3 is a retired IAS Officer. If respondent No.3 is a retired IAS Officer and he is quite

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:22899 WP No. 3497 of 2022

¶35

acquainted with the provisions of the "PTCL Act", has slept over his right for 15 years. Respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner erred in entertaining a petition ignoring the inordinate delay in seeking restoration.

¶36

Respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner

¶37

has proceeded to allow restoration petition on the ground that Will is not probated. Respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner has also come to the conclusion that bequeath is in contravention of the provisions of the "PTCL Act". The said order is confirmed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner. The order passed by respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner is not sustainable. Respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner being a Quasi Judicial Authority erred in adjudicating validity of the Will. The question of validity of Will cannot be subject matter of the PTCL proceedings.

¶38

By way of testamentary dispossession, the provisions of "PTCL Act", which is contravened

¶39

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:22899 WP No. 3497 of 2022

¶40

immediately after the death of Smt.Sarojamma, who died on 17.06.2002, Will become enforceable immediately after

¶41

the death of testator. Therefore, the contravention occurred in the year 2002. Since there is a delay of 15 years, respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner erred in entertaining the petition and the same is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another¹ and Vivek M. Hinduja vs. M. Aswatha² .

¶42

In the present case on hand, there is a delay of 15 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.

¶43

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment has held that where statute does not provide for limitation, the

¶44

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶45

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶46

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:22899 WP No. 3497 of 2022

¶47

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.

¶48

In the instant case, diligence is woefully lacking. There is a gross delay of 15 years in initiating action. Therefore, the authorities were not justified in entertaining the application. The respondent No.3 is not entitled for restoration of the petition land as the material on record also indicates that third party rights are created.

¶49

The Hon'ble 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,

¶50

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:22899 WP No. 3497 of 2022

¶51

such inaction would create a right in favour of other party. Therefore, the Hon'ble 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.

¶52

Hence, I pass the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶55

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

¶56

(iii) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

JUDGE

Sd/-

NBM

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Sri Sachidananda Murthy v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sachidananda Murthy v. The Assistant 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

Sri. G. J. Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a C Jayappa Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

Sri Kempegowda , Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Ideal Education Society Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

B Ranganatha Vs State of Karnataka

Sarojamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner