Dismissed

Sri K T Ramanjinappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2023WP/531/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by a legal heir challenging a Deputy Commissioner's order rejecting a restoration petition. The Court held the Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction regarding Form No.1 grants and emphasized that gross delay and laches of 15 years justified rejection under the PTCL Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.

Sri K T Ramanjinappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:22768 WP No. 531 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.531 OF 2022 (SC-ST)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI K T RAMANJINAPPA S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT KORALUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561114

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.SHIVASHANKAR K, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001

¶15

REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECRETARY

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU AT BEERSANDRA DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:22768 WP No. 531 of 2022

¶20

DODDABALLAPURA

¶21

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561203

¶22

SRI C NARAYANAREDDY S/O.LATE RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560067

¶23

SRI K LAKSHMAN S/O.LATE T.KRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NOBEL HOUSE THULASI THEATRE ROAD MARATHAHALLI BENGALURU-560 037

¶24

SRI. P H C GOWDA S/O LATE HANUMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS R/AT NO.F.F - 01 ITTINARAAJE APARTMENT OPP. TO RAMAMURTHY NAGARA POLICE STATION BENGALURU - 560 016

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI.VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R.1 TO R.3;

¶27

SRI.RAKESH BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R.5 AND R.6; NOTICE TO R.4 IS D/W V/O/D 21.06.2023)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DTD 19.08.2019 VIDE ANNX-E AND

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:22768 WP No. 531 of 2022

¶30

FURTHER BE PLEASED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 AND ETC.

¶31

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

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The captioned writ petition is filed by the legal heir of the original grantee, who has questioned the order of respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner, wherein respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner has allowed the appeal filed by purchaser and the petition seeking restoration is rejected on the ground that the land in question is not a granted land. The said order is questioned in the captioned writ petition by the legal heir of the original grantee.

¶34

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6.

¶35

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:22768 WP No. 531 of 2022

¶36

The short point that requires consideration at the

¶37

hands of this Court is;

¶38

As to whether respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain a restoration petition without examining the Grant Certificate issued under Form No.1?

¶39

The controversy as to whether the document styled as a Certificate of Grant would automatically fall under the category of granted land for depressed classes is dealt by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.K.Muniraju .vs. State of Karnataka¹ . The Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the said controversy and upholding the judgment of the High Court, held that, merely because a document is styled as a certificate of grant, that in itself will not lead to an inference that the grant was intended for a depressed class. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.K.Muniraju held as under:

¶40

" The document in question has been styled as "certificate of grant". In order to know the real

¶41

1 (2008) 4 SCC 451

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:22768 WP No. 531 of 2022

¶43

¶44

nature of the document, one has to look into the recitals of the document and not the title of the document. The intention is to be gathered from recitals in the deed, conduct of the parties and evidence on record. It is settled law that question of construction of a document is to be decided by finding out intention of the executant, firstly, from a comprehensive reading of the terms of the document itself, and then, by looking into, to the extent permissible, the prevailing circumstances which persuaded the author of the document to execute it. With a view to ascertain the nature of a transaction, the document has to be read as a whole. A sentence or term used may not be determinative of real nature of transaction."

¶45

In the light of findings recorded by Hon'ble Apex Court cited supra, merely because the document is styled as a certificate of grant, it cannot be presumed that the land was granted in the category of depressed class.

¶46

Admittedly, in the present case on hand, Smt.Akkayamma had participated in the public auction and purchased the petition land. Merely because the document is styled as a Grant Certificate under Form No.1,

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:22768 WP No. 531 of 2022

¶49

cannot be treated as a granted land. This aspect is not examined by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner.

¶50

If Grant Certificate is issued under Form No.1, which is as good as title document, then respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain a 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"). The provisions of the "PTCL Act" are not applicable to the present case on hand.

¶51

Be that as it may, even otherwise, the restoration is sought after 15 years. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another² and Vivek M. Hinduja vs. M. Aswatha³ while examining what would constitute a reasonable period has clearly laid down the guidelines to the Authorities entertaining a restoration proceedings. In the instant case, the diligence is woefully lacking. There is

¶52

2 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶53

3 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶54

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:22768 WP No. 531 of 2022

¶55

a delay of 15 years. 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 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. All these significant details are rightly dealt by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner and is strictly in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.K.Muniraju (cited

¶56

above).

¶57

NC: 2023:KHC:22768 WP No. 531 of 2022

¶58

¶59