Allowed

Smt Bheemakka v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2023WP/49407/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed orders permitting restoration of land granted to a Scheduled Caste/Tribe individual after a 13-year delay. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court held that authorities and interested persons must act within a reasonable time when statutes lack specific limitation periods, barring such restoration due to gross laches.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner are set aside.

Smt Bheemakka Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:20016 WP No. 49407 of 2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 49407 OF 2017 (SCST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. BHEEMAKKA, W/O. THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT KULUVEHALLI, THALAK HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK - 577 522, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. B.M. SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶15

SMT. PALAMMA (DEAD), NO LRS; W/O LATE. KATTE PALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶16

SRI. SANNOBAIAH (DEAD), S/O LATE. KATTE PALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:20016 WP No. 49407 of 2017

¶19

SRI. PALAIAH @ GUNDAPPA, S/O LATE. KATTE PALAIAH,

¶20

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

¶21

RESPONDENTS NOS. 3 TO 5 ARE

¶22

RESIDING AT KALUVEHALLI, THALAK HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK - 577 522 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶23

JAYAMMA, W/O. SANNOBAIAH

¶24

MANJUNATHA, S/O. SANNOBAIAH

¶25

PRAHLAD, S/O. SANNOBAIAH

¶26

RAVI, S/O. SANNOBAIAH,

¶27

ALL ARE RESIDENT OF KALUVE HALLI, TALUK HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 522.

¶28

RESPONDENT NOS. 6 TO 9 ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED R4 AS PER ORDER DATED 06/06/2023.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2., NOTICE SERVED TO R5, R6, R7, R8, AND R9; VIDE ORDER DATED 12/01/2023 PETITION AGAINST R3 STANDS ABATED.)

¶31

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE NO.SCPTL (CLK) 302:1996-97 DATED 05.01.2007, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CASE NO.STPL

¶32

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:20016 WP No. 49407 of 2017

¶33

(A) 26/2007-08 DATED 07.06.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

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.

¶36

Before I advert to the facts of the present case, it would be useful to refer to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court on this issue in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi

¶37

.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

¶38

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶39

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:20016 WP No. 49407 of 2017

¶42

by the Division Bench in W.A.No.16/2021 disposed of on 05.04.2021

¶43

The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

¶44

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 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.

¶45

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

¶46

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶47

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶48

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:20016 WP No. 49407 of 2017

¶49

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 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.

¶50

NC: 2023:KHC:20016 WP No. 49407 of 2017

¶51

¶52

In the present case on hand, the petition land

¶53

was granted to one Katte Palaiah, who is the husband of respondent No.3 and father of respondents No.4 and 5 on 14.09.1959. After demise of original grantee, his widow and children/respondents No.3 and 4, sold the petition land in favour of Thimmarayappa, who is the husband of petitioner herein under registered sale deed dated 27.01.1983. Respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner has initiated suo-moto proceedings in 1996. There is delay of 13 years in initiating restoration proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi, has held that petition seeking restoration of land has to be made within a reasonable time. A reasonable time is also applicable to the authorities. If there is delay of 13 years, respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner erred in invoking the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978. Respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner has also erred in not examining inordinate delay in initiating restoration proceedings under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The order passed by respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner ordering restoration is

¶54

NC: 2023:KHC:20016 WP No. 49407 of 2017

¶55

¶56

contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra.

¶57

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 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.

¶58

In the instant case, diligence is woefully lacking. There is a gross delay of 13 years in initiating action. Therefore, the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner was not justified in initiating suo-moto

¶59

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:20016 WP No. 49407 of 2017

¶60

proceedings. The respondents No.3 to 5 are not entitled for restoration of the petition land as the material on record also indicates that third party rights are created.

¶61

For the reasons stated supra, the order passed

¶62

by the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner and the order passed by the respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner are not sustainable and same are liable to be quashed. Hence, I pass the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶65

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

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

hdk

Smt Bheemakka v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Bheemakka 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Kiran Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri T Raghavendra Setty Vs State of Karnataka at the Instance of

Naveen Kumar Vs Sri. Mohammed Rafi

Smt Subbamma Vs Sri P Nagaraju

Narayanamma Vs State of Karnataka

Bathel Medical Institute of Nursing Sciences Vs the Registrar Rguhs