Allowed

Mr. a.C.Basavaraja v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2023WP/42596/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging restoration orders under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. The Court quashed the orders, holding that the 44-year delay by original grantees barred relief under principles of laches and vested rights of a second purchaser.

What did the court decide?

The orders of the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner restoring the land and confirming restoration were set aside.

Mr. a.C.Basavaraja Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 42596 of 2016

¶3

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

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 42596 OF 2016 (SC-ST)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. A.C.BASAVARAJA S/O A CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.308, 3RD FLOOR, RAHEJA CHAMBER NO.12, MUSEUM ROAD, BANGALORE-560025.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.NARAYANA BHAT.M., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101.

¶12

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101.

¶14

SRI MANOHARA, S/O MUNIYAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE

¶15

SRI MURTHY S/O MUNIYAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE

¶16

BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF BUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI,

¶17

¶18

WP No. 42596 of 2016

¶19

SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-562105.

¶20

SRI R NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE REDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT BALUVANAHALLI VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK-562102.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.VENKAT SATHYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI.MADDURAPPA.D., ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 & R4; SRI.M.JAIPRAKASH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.06.2014 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN RA SC/ST NO.25/2012-13 AND THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2012 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

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.

¶26

¶27

WP No. 42596 of 2016

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

3. The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

¶31

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

¶32

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶33

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶34

¶35

WP No. 42596 of 2016

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶39

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶40

¶41

WP No. 42596 of 2016

¶42

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.

¶43

In the present case on hand, the petition land was granted to one Muddappa on 04.01.1961, grant certificate was issued on 04.11.1963 and there was a restriction for alienation for a period of 15 years. The original grantee sold the petition land in favour of one Mr.Reddappa under registered sale deed dated 22.06.1964. After the demise of Reddappa, his legal heirs sold the petition land in favour of petitioner herein under registered sale deed dated 05.01.2009. The grandchildren of original grantee Muddappa have initiated proceedings by filing an application under Section 4 of the PTCL Act in

¶44

¶45

WP No. 42596 of 2016

¶46

the year 2008. 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 PTCL Act. The said order is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner.

¶47

Admittedly, the first alienation is of the year 1964. Therefore, in the present case on hand, there is a delay of 44 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

¶48

¶49

WP No. 42596 of 2016

¶50

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.

¶51

In the instant case, diligence is woefully

¶52

lacking. There is a gross delay of 44 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 rights are created. The petitioner herein is the second purchaser.

¶53

The principles laid down by the Apex Court in Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav⁵ [(2018) 12 SCC 527] is also squarely applicable to the present case on hand, as the petitioner is second purchaser and

¶54

5 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶55

¶56

WP No. 42596 of 2016

¶57

the property has changed hands based on registered documents. The 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, such inaction would create a right in favour of other party. Therefore, the 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. The registered sale deeds are public documents and after verifying the public documents, if citizens enter into further transaction believing such public documents to be genuine, the subsequent alienations cannot be set at naught by showing leniency to aggrieved party who has slept over his rights, if rights are crystallized on account of inaction on the part of the original grantee. The said application has to be rejected on this count also.

¶58

8. For the reasons stated supra, the order passed

¶59

by the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner and the

¶60

¶61

WP No. 42596 of 2016

¶62

order passed by the respondent No.1/Deputy

¶63

Commissioner are liable to be quashed.

¶64

Hence, I pass the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶67

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

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

NC: List No.:1 Sl No.: 16

Mr. a.C.Basavaraja v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. a.C.Basavaraja 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

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

Sri. Shivarudrappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Sangamesh Vs the State of Karnataka