Allowed

Smt. Pramila v. Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2023WP/43795/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a bona fide purchaser challenging a land restoration order. The Court set aside orders granting restoration due to a gross delay of 38 years initiated by the original grantee's heirs, holding that the petitioner's rights should be protected.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition allowed; orders dated 23.09.2005 and 16.03.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner set aside.

Smt. Pramila Vs Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:23821 WP No. 43795 of 2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 43795 OF 2016 (SC-ST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. PRAMILA WIFE OF SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT HNR BUILDING, GANDHI BAZAAR, SHIMOGA-577 201.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.R.NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE(NOC))

¶11

AND:

¶12

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGA-577 201.

¶13

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

ASST. COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA SUB-DIVISION, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGA-577 201.

¶15

SRI. RAMANAIKA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS, SRI. CHANDRANAIK, SON OF LATE RAMANAIKA, AGE MAJOR

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:23821 WP No. 43795 of 2016

¶18

3A. SMT.RATHNA BAI, W/O LATE CHANDRA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶19

3B. SMT.SUMA BAI, D/O LATE CHANDRA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶20

3C. SMT. SUNEETHA BAI, D/O LATE CHANDRA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶21

3D. SRI.DINESH NAIKA, S/O LATE CHANDRA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶22

ALL ARE RESIDING OF GAADIKOPPA TANDA - 577201 SHIVAMOGGA TALUK & DISTRICT.

¶23

SRI. LALYANAIKA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS,

¶24

4A. SRI. JANYANIKA, SON OF LATE LALYANAIKA, AGE MAJOR

¶25

SRI. PEERYANAIKA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS,

¶26

5A. SRI. MEGYANAIKA, SON OF LATE PEERYANAIKA, AGE MAJOR

¶27

SL.NO.3 TO 5 ARE ALL RESIDING AT GADIKOPPA VILLAGE,

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:23821 WP No. 43795 of 2016

¶29

SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT, SHIMOGA-577 201.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI.VENKATA SATHYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI.S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 (A TO D) & R4(A) & R5(A))

¶32

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS WHICH RESULTED IN PASSING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEX-A DATED 23.09.2005 IN THE PROCEEDINGS NO.PTCLCR NO.4(B)/2004-05 AND ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEX-B DATED 16.03.2016 PASSED IN CASE NO. SC/ST 14/2005-16 NEW NO.SC/ST 9/2010-2011 AND ETC.,

¶33

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The captioned writ petition is filed by the purchaser assailing the order of respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner who has entertained the petition 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 has ordered for restoration ignoring the inordinate delay of 38 years which is confirmed by the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:23821 WP No. 43795 of 2016

¶38

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

¶39

it would be useful to refer to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court on this issue in the case of 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 CoOrdinate 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.

¶40

The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

¶41

Lakshmi, while interpreting Section 5 of the 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

¶42

the case of Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and

¶43

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶44

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶45

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶46

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:23821 WP No. 43795 of 2016

¶47

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 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

¶48

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶49

¶50

NC: 2023:KHC:23821 WP No. 43795 of 2016

¶51

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.

¶52

In the present case on hand, the petition land

¶53

was granted in favour of Ramanaika, Lalyanaika and Peryanaika. The original grantees sold it in favour of one Ramarao under two registered sale deeds dated 24.4.1967 and 26.4.1967. The said Ramarao in turn has sold it to the present petitioner under registered sale deed dated 7.10.2004. The restoration petition is filed by the legal heirs of the original grantee on 29.6.2005. There is a delay of 38 years. Respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner without examining the inordinate delay has entertained the petition and has ordered for restoration. The said order is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. The judgments cited supra clearly indicates that on the ground of gross delay and laches, the application made by

¶54

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:23821 WP No. 43795 of 2016

¶55

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 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

¶56

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.

¶57

In the instant case, diligence is woefully

¶58

lacking. There is a gross delay of 38 years in initiating action. The Apex Court in the above cited judgments has clearly held that the Assistant Commissioner should proceed to out rightly reject the petition seeking restoration if there is inordinate delay. Therefore, on this

¶59

¶60

NC: 2023:KHC:23821 WP No. 43795 of 2016

¶61

sole ground, respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner ought to have rejected the petition.

¶62

This Court is of the view that the restoration

¶63

petition is also not maintainable as the property has changed hands. 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. The first sale is of the year 1967. The present petitioners have purchased the land in 2004. If petitioner after referring to the title documents of his vendor which is of the year 1967 and after due enquiry has purchased the petition land, the legal heirs of the original grantee cannot be permitted to seek restoration having slept over their rights for almost 38 years. If the petitioner referring to the title documents, after due enquiry has purchased the petition land, he being a bonafide purchaser, his rights are to be protected. The rights of petitioner's vendor and petitioner have stood

¶64

5 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶65

NC: 2023:KHC:23821 WP No. 43795 of 2016

¶66

¶67

crystallized by passage of time. Therefore, the order of restoration passed by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner are liable to be set aside.

¶68

7. Hence, I pass the following:

¶69

ORDER

¶70

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶71

(ii) The order dated 23.09.2005 passed by respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-A and the order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-B are hereby set aside.

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58

Smt. Pramila v. Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pramila v. 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

Smt. Kavitha Vs Sri. H C Chandra Mohan

Smt Shashikala Vs Sri Ravichandra @ Ravichandra Reddy N

Mr Vinay Kumar Sinha Vs State of Karnataka

Rajanna S/O Late Munishamappa Since Dead by His Lrs Vs Sri. S.S.Puttaraju

Sri P Jagadish Vs the State of Karnataka

Neelaganga Ayurvedic Medical College Hospital and Research Center Vs the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences