Dismissed

Sri H Vittalamurthy S/O G Hanumanthaiah @ Nagaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2023WP/40497/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a Writ Petition challenging the rejection of a land restoration application under the PTCL Act. The Court held that a 19-year delay barred the original grantee's claim, as the law requires reforms within a reasonable time or the application is liable to be rejected outright.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed with no interference; the order rejecting restoration due to 19-year delay upheld. Pending applications dismissed.

Sri H Vittalamurthy S/O G Hanumanthaiah @ Nagaiah Vs… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:23876 WP No. 40497 of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.40497 OF 2010 (SC-ST)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI H VITTALAMURTHY

¶10

S/O G HANUMANTHAIAH @ NAGAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶11

1(A). SRI.MANJESH

¶12

S/O LATE H VITTALMURTHY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶13

1(B) SRI.RAMAKRISHNA V

¶14

S/O LATE H VITTALMURTHY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶15

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE PETITIONER NO.1(A) AND 1(B) BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.486, 11^TH MAIN RHBCS LAYOUT ANNAPOORNESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU 560 091

¶17

SRI N.RAMACHANDRAIAH S/O G.HANUMANTHAIAH @ NAGAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶18

2A. SMT.VEENA R

¶19

S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH N AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC:23876 WP No. 40497 of 2010

¶22

2B. SMT.VEENA R S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH N AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶23

THE PETITIONER NO.2(A) AND 2(B) BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.486, 11^TH MAIN RHBCS LAYOUT ANNAPOORNESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU 560 091

¶24

SRI N SHANTHKUMAR S/O G HANUMANTHAIAH @ NAGAIAH AGED 52 YEARS

¶25

SRI N RAGHUPATHI S/O G HANUMANTHAIAH @ NAGAIAH AGED 49 YEARS

¶26

SRI N RAMESH S/O G.HANUMANTHAIAH @ NAGAIAH AGED 46 YEARS

¶27

PETITIONER ARE ALL RESIDING AT NO 486, 11^TH MAIN RHBCS LAYOUT, ANNAPOORNESHWARINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 091

¶28

…PETITIONERS

¶29

(BY SRI.MANJUNATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.T SESHAGIRI RAO & SUNIL S RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:23876 WP No. 40497 of 2010

¶34

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION DR.VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWERS BENGALURU

¶35

SHRI M VEERAPPA S/O MUNISHAMAPPA KORAMANGALA VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶36

SMT KEMPAMMA MAJOR

¶37

SHRI NAGHARAJU MAJOR

¶38

SHRI GANGADHARA MAJOR

¶39

SHRI VEERABHADRA MAJOR

¶40

SHRI PARAMESH MAJOR

¶41

SHRI GANESH MAJOR

¶42

SMT PARVATHAMMA MAJOR

¶43

SMT VIMALA MAJOR

¶44

SMT NAGARATHANA MAJOR

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC:23876 WP No. 40497 of 2010

¶47

RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 12 ARE RESIDING AT NO.10, I FLOOR 18^TH CROSS, 21^ST MAIN BEHIND MARUTHI MANDHIR VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 40

¶48

…RESPONDENTS

¶49

(BY SRI.VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R.1 AND R.2; SRI.C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R.3; R.5 TO 12 - SERVED

¶50

V/O/D 28.01.2015 - R.7, R.8, R.10 AND R.11 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF THE DECEASED R.4)

¶51

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DT.17.12.2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶52

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

¶53

ORDER

¶54

The captioned writ petition is filed by the legal heirs of the original grantee – G.Hanumanthaiah questioning the order passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, who has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of

¶55

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:23876 WP No. 40497 of 2010

¶56

restoration passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner.

¶57

Before I advert to the facts of the present case,

¶58

it would be useful to refer to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court on this issue in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi

¶59

.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.

¶60

The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

¶61

Lakshmi, while interpreting Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of

¶62

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

¶63

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶64

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶65

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:23876 WP No. 40497 of 2010

¶66

PTCL Act. The Hon'ble 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 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

¶67

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶68

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶69

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:23876 WP No. 40497 of 2010

¶70

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.

¶71

4. In the instant case, this Court would find that G.Hanumanthaiah, who is the original grantee, sold the petition land in favour of respondent No.3 under registered sale deed dated 03.09.1981. The sale is by original grantee himself and he has sought restoration of the land in the year 1999 and therefore, this Court would that there is a delay of 19 years. Therefore, the question that requires consideration is that;

¶72

NC: 2023:KHC:23876 WP No. 40497 of 2010

¶73

¶74

Whether respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner was justified in entertaining a restoration petition filed after lapse of 19 years of the sale?

¶75

My answer is empathic No.

¶76

5. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cited judgments, respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner ought to have outrightly rejected the petition filed under Sections 4 and 5 of "PTCL Act" only on the ground of delay. In the instant case, the diligence is woefully lacking.

¶77

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued vehemently and tried to persuade this Court to set-aside the order of respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the petitioners being only the legal heirs were not brought on record and therefore, the order stands vitiated as the appeal is not against respondents, who had no subsisting right in the petition land.

¶78

¶79

NC: 2023:KHC:23876 WP No. 40497 of 2010

¶80

7. At para No.1 of the petition, the petitioners claim

¶81

that respondent Nos.4 to 12 are the widow and children of one – G.Venkatesh, who is the elder brother of original grantee – G.Hanumanthaiah. Therefore, the order, which is passed without bringing Class-I heir of the deceased G.Hanumanthaiah on record, is a non est and the entire proceedings before respondent No.1 – Deputy Commissioner stands vitiated on account of not bringing the legal heirs of the original grantee on record. Though I would find that the argument addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is very impressive, I am of the view that remanding the matter only on that count in the present case will not serve any purpose.

¶82

8. The law in regard to right of a grantee or legal heir of original grantee to seek restoration is given quietus by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cited judgments. The original grantee moved a petition seeking restoration. The Assistant Commissioner before examining the merits

¶83

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:23876 WP No. 40497 of 2010

¶84

was required to examine the inordinate delay in seeking restoration. If there is inordinate delay as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the question of holding an enquiry to ascertain as to whether granted land is alienated in contravention cannot be looked into. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment supra has held that such applications have to be outrightly rejected without examining the merits of the case.

¶85

9. Since there is a delay of 19 years, the original grantee, who filed a petition seeking restoration, was not entitled to seek restoration. Respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner erred in exercising jurisdiction conferred on him under the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of PTC Act ignoring the inordinate delay. Therefore, even if the petitioners are able to demonstrate that they are the class-I heirs, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to remit the matter to respondent No.1 – Deputy Commissioner. On account of inordinate delay and laches, the original grantee lost right to seek restoration.

¶86

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:23876 WP No. 40497 of 2010

¶87

If petition seeking restoration is liable to be rejected only on the ground of delay, I am not inclined to set-aside the order of respondent No.1 – Deputy Commissioner and remand the matter, which would only lead to miscarriage of justice and the purchasers, whose rights have stood crystallized by passage of time have to unnecessarily undergo long ordeal of litigation. Therefore, the order under challenge does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.

¶88

In the present case on hand, there is a delay of 16 years in initiating action. The respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner has 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

¶89

12 - NC: 2023:KHC:23876 WP No. 40497 of 2010

¶90

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.

¶91

11. The question as to who are the Class-I heirs of the original grantee cannot be examined in PTCL proceedings. The said issue relating to as to who are the legal heirs of the original grantee has to be adjudicated before the competent forum and not under the provisions of the 'PTCL Act'.

¶92

12. For the foregoing reasons, I pass the following;

¶93