High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order setting aside a resumption petition. The Court held that after a 30-year lapse, subsequent purchaser rights crystallized under public sale deeds, barring restoration under the PTCL Act due to inordinate delay.
The writ petition stands dismissed.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:25651 WP No. 575 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 575 OF 2023 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
PAKEERAPPA
S/O POOJAPPA,
GANGAMMA, W/O PAKEERAPPA,
KRISHNAPPA, S/O PAKEERAPPA,
Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2023:KHC:25651 WP No. 575 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
1-5 ARE R/AT MARNAMIBAYALU BEHIND VENKATESHWARA NAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA-577201
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAGESH R K, SRI.S.P.MANJAPPA, SRI.S.P.RAJAPPA, SRI.S.P.SRINIVAS, SRI.S.P.RAVI, SRI.HANUMANTHAPPA, SRI.PUNITH, SRI.LOHITH, SMT.DURGAMMA, SMT.NETHRAVATHI - PETITIONERS)
AND:
SMT NIRMALA, W/O LATE B G MAHENDRA, 50 YEARS
3 & 4 ARE R/AT NO.4, RAJESHWARI, 1ST CROSS, MADHAVA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 & 2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2022 PASSED BY THE R1/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA IN SC/ST 11/2021 (RD/00/50000/329973) VIDE ANNEXURE - H.
NC: 2023:KHC:25651 WP No. 575 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Inspite of specific direction, the petitioners with a intention to avoid this Bench have not engaged a lawyer.
The Registry was directed to print the names of the petitioners in the cause list. Though the name of the petitioners are reflected in the cause list, they have not chosen to take steps to engage a counsel to prosecute this petition.
preliminary hearing.
notice for respondents 1 and 2. Perused the records.
NC: 2023:KHC:25651 WP No. 575 of 2023
application seeking resumption which is set aside by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner.
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
1 (2020) 14 SCC 232
2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC
NC: 2023:KHC:25651 WP No. 575 of 2023
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. 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
3 (2018) 12 SCC 527
4 (2020) 14 SCC 236
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.
Therefore, the Apex Court was of the view that time must 5 (2018) 12 SCC 527
- 8 - NC: 2023:KHC:25651 WP No. 575 of 2023
be reckoned reasonably, not only in order to preserve the rights and advantages which party possesses but equally to protect each party from losses he ought not to suffer. The registered sale deeds are public documents and after verifying the public documents, if citizens enter into further transaction believing such public documents to be genuine, the subsequent alienations cannot be set at naught by showing leniency to aggrieved party who has slept over his rights, if rights are crystallized on account of inaction on the part of the original grantee. The said application has to be rejected on this count also.
8. In the instant case, the land in question was
granted to one Poojappa, who was the ancestor of petitioners herein. The original grantee during his life time sold the granted land in favour of respondent No.5 under registered sale deed dated 25.6.1966, who in turn sold the same in favour of one B.G. Mahendra, who is the husband
of respondent No.3 on 22.9.1967. After the death of original grantee, his two sons namely Pakeerappa and
Nagappa filed an application seeking resumption of the land in question. In the instant case, there is delay of 30 years in seeking resumption. In the instant case, diligence is woefully lacking. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra has clearly held that the authorities should decline to entertain the restoration petition, if it is found that there is inordinate delay in filing the application. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner who has rightly set aside the order passed by Assistant Commissioner allowing the restoration petition relying the judgments of the Apex Court in the above cited judgments.
time, the rights of subsequent purchasers has stood crystallized and therefore, rights which had accrued and vested with the subsequent purchasers cannot be set at naught by exercising the power under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. These significant details are not at all taken into consideration by Assistant Commissioner. The order passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner is strictly inconsonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, I do not find any infirmities in the order under challenge.
ORDER
The writ petition is devoid of merits and
accordingly, stands dismissed;
Sd/JUDGE
ALB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether legal heirs of original grantee can seek restoration of land under Section 5 of the PTCL Act after a delay of 30 years allowing third party rights to crystallize.
Whether inordinate delay qualifies as a bar to entertaining an application for resumption/annulment of alienation under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of
Whether the Deputy Commissioner correctly set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order allowing restoration of the granted land.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and anotherExplained¶55
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and another
Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. AswathaExplained¶54
Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha
W.P.No.50446 of 2012Explained¶54
W.P.No.50446 of 2012
Nekkanti RamaExplained¶56
(2020) 14 SCC 232 · Who else cites this
Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore YadavRelied on¶64
Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav
Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and othersRelied on¶63
Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and others
Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore YadavApplied¶69
[(2018) 12 SCC 527] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Pakeerappa & Ors.
Deputy Commissioner Shivamogga District
Assistant Commissioner Shivamogga Sub Division
B G Mahendra
Smt Nirmala
Smt Swapna
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
