High Court of Karnataka dismissed a public interest writ petition filed by a grandson seeking to quash an order denying restoration of allotted land. Petitioner had initiated proceedings under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Tribes Act after 34 years, constituting gross delay barring maintainability.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.4376 OF 2023 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI.Y.KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE SRI YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT ROOPENA AGRAHARA MADIWALA POST HOSUR MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560068
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.HEMA CHANDIRAN J, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.DR M SUNIL SASTRY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
WP No. 4376 of 2023
RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 160
RESPONDENT NOS.7 AND 8 ARE R/AT GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE LAKKUR HOBLI MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563160
WP No. 4376 of 2023
DENKANIKOTE TALUK KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT TAMILNADU - 635107
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R.1 AND R.2; SRI.S.VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.3, 5, 7 AND 8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2022 (IMPUGNED ORDER) PASSED BY THE R.1 IN CASE NO.PTCL.14/2020 (PTCL) AT ANNEXURE-A AT THE WRIT PETITION PASSED BY THE R.1 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the grandson of original grantee feeling aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A, wherein respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner has allowed the appeal filed by respondent Nos.3 to 9 and set aside the order dated 11.05.2016 passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner.
WP No. 4376 of 2023
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
1 (2020) 14 SCC 232
2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC
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 coordinate 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
3 (2018) 12 SCC 527
4 (2020) 14 SCC 236
WP No. 4376 of 2023
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.
the petition land in favour of one Krishnabovi, who is the grand father of the petitioner herein, by order dated 17.04.1967. The original grantee, during his life time, sold the petition land in favour of father of respondent Nos.3 to 8 herein under registered sale deed dated 27.11.1974. The grandchildren of original grantee i.e., petitioner herein moved an application under Section 5 of the 'PTCL Act' in the year 2011. This Court would find that there is a delay of 34 years. Respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner erred in ordering for restoration of the
petition land, which runs contrary to the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama
Lakshmi (cited supra). The Deputy Commissioner has rightly taken cognizance of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and has proceeded to allow the appeal filed by the purchasers on the ground of delay. The Deputy Commissioner placing reliance on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (cited supra), however, held that the legal heirs of original grantee could not have invoked the provisions of PTCL Act and sought for restoration as there is an inordinate delay of 34 years. The order passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner is strictly in consonance with the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra. Respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner erred in entertaining the application without taking cognizance of the inordinate delay of 34 years.
WP No. 4376 of 2023
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.
WP No. 4376 of 2023
ORDER
The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act for restoration of granted land is maintainable after an inordinate delay of 34 years.
Whether the Deputy Commissioner was correct in setting aside the Assistant Commissioner's order allowing restoration due to delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and anotherReferred¶37
(2020) 14 SCC 232 · Who else cites this
Vivek M. Hinduja vs. M. AswathaReferred¶37
(2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC
W.P.No.50446 of 2012Affirmed¶37
Chhedi Lal Yadav vs. Hari Kishore YadavReferred¶43
(2018) 12 SCC 527 · Who else cites this
Ningappa vs. Deputy Commissioner and othersReferred¶43
(2020) 14 SCC 236 · Who else cites this
W.A.No.16/2021Affirmed¶37
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Y Krishnappa
The Deputy Commissioner Kolar District
The Assistant Commissioner Kolar Sub-Division
Sri Venkatchhalapathy
Smt Rajamma
Sri Muniyappa
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
