Dismissed

Mr. Manjunath v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC25 May 2023WP/5526/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the petitioner's appeal seeking restoration of restricted land. The court held that the application was filed after an 18-year delay, constituting gross laches and inordinate delay. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court ruled that such applications under the PTCL Act must be rejected if not filed within a reasonable time.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it was devoid of merits due to inordinate delay (18 years).

Mr. Manjunath Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 5526 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 5526 OF 2021 (SCST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. MANJUNATH, S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT SINGAPURA VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TLAUK - 560 097.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY B, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE DY. COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BEHIND "KANDAYA BHAVAN", K. G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION, "KANDAYA BHAVAN", K. G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009.

¶15

MRS. PADMAVATHI, W/O MR. M. V. MOHAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 752, II MAIN ROAD,

¶16

¶17

WP No. 5526 of 2021

¶18

MATHIKERE, BANGALORE - 560 054.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1 TO R2; SRI. H P LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 (CP NO. 4156/20)

¶21

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.1.2020 PASSED BY THE R-1 SC.ST (APPEAL) NO.88/2014-15 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A ND ALLOW THIS W.P CALL FOR THE RECORD IN NO.K.S.C.ST.72/2013-14 ON THE FILE OF THE R-2 AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

¶23

IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The captioned writ petition is filed by the grand son of the original grantee, feeling aggrieved by the order of respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A, wherein respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner has reversed the order of restoration passed by respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner.

¶26

3 - WP No. 5526 of 2021

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

3. The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

¶30

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

¶31

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶32

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶33

¶34

WP No. 5526 of 2021

¶35

down in Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav³ and also in the case of Ningappa .vs. Deputy

¶36

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 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

¶37

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶38

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶39

¶40

WP No. 5526 of 2021

¶41

finding, this Court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and

¶42

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 authorities granted the petition land in question vide order dated 19.04.1978 in favour of petitioners grandfather. The original grantee during his lifetime, alienated the petition land in favour of respondent No.3 under registered sale deed dated 17.07.1995. The petitioner, who is the grandson of the original grantee, has filed an application seeking restoration of land. The said application was filed on 15.10.2013. Therefore, this Court would find that there is inordinate delay of 18 years

¶44

¶45

WP No. 5526 of 2021

¶46

In the present case on hand, there is a delay of

¶47

18 years in initiating action. The Assistant Commissioner has 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 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

¶48

¶49

WP No. 5526 of 2021

¶50

invoke the provisions of PTCL Act is well settled by catena of judgments.

¶51

In the present case on hand, I would find that the action is grossly delayed and taken beyond reasonable time. In that view of the matter, the application filed by petitioner seeking resumption and restoration of granted land on the ground that the transfer is in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act is not at all maintainable since the same is not filed within a reasonable period.

¶52

For the reasons stated supra, the writ petition is devoid of merits. The Assistant Commissioner, without examining the inordinate delay has entertained the application and ordered for restoration. Respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner, has rightly taken note of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi cited supra and has rightly reversed the order. The order passed by the Deputy

¶53

¶54

WP No. 5526 of 2021

¶55

Commissioner is strictly inconsonance of the principles laid

¶56

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶57