Quashed

Sri Muniyappa v. Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC19 Jul 2023WP/58038/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Deputy Commissioner's order vesting land in purchasers following a restoration attempt after a 19-year delay. The court held that authorities could not enquire heirship due to expiration of limitation rights and upheld the purchasers' title based on prior civil judgments.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order vesting land was quashed; W.P. No. 13539/2018 allowed; W.P. No. 58038/2018 dismissed.

Sri Muniyappa Vs Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:25127 WP No. 58038 of 2018 C/W WP No. 13539 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 58038 OF 2018 (SCST)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 13539 OF 2018

¶9

IN WP. NO.58038/2018

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. MUNIYAPPA, S/O LATE BEERAPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O HEDAGINABELE VILLAGE, KASBA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK - 563 130, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

Digitally signed by SUCHITRA M J Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI. TAJUDDIN, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶17

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB DIVISION, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶18

TAHASILDAR TALUK-OFFICE,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:25127 WP No. 58038 of 2018 C/W WP No. 13539 of 2018

¶21

MALUR - 563 130, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶22

NARAYANAPPA, S/O LATE MUNISWAMY, AGE MAJOR,

¶23

MALAPPA, S/O LATE MUNISWAMY, AGE MAJOR,

¶24

NARAYANASWAMY, S/O LATE MUNISWAMY, AGE MAJOR,

¶25

ALL 4 TO 6 R/O HEDAGINABELE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,

¶26

MALUR TALUK - 563 130.

¶27

MUNIYAMMA, W/O CHICMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, D/O A.K. AVALIGA, MARADAGHATTA VILLAGE, KYSAMBA HOBLI, BANGARAPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 562 102.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. K. MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6; SRI. RASHEED KHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. MADHUSUDHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R7)

¶30

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:25127 WP No. 58038 of 2018 C/W WP No. 13539 of 2018

¶32

¶33

DATED 7.2.2018 PASSED BY R-1 IN CASE NO. R.A. SC/ST:5/2016-17 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE EXTENT OF RESTORATION OF LAND BEARING SY.NO. 62 NEW NO. :99 AFTER PHODED EXTENT 1 ACRE 33 GUNTAS OF LAND OF HEDAGINAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, RESTORATION OF LAND TO THE GOVERNMENT IS TO BE QUASHED TO THAT EFFECT AND TO THAT EXTENT ONLY AND ALLOWING THE PETITION TO RESTORE THE LAND IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER WHO IS ONLY SURVIVING LEGAL HEIR AND SUCCESSOR TO ORIGINAL GRANTEES AS IT WAS EARLIER RESOTRED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN REPSECT OF ENTIRE EXTENT OF LAND BELONGING TO PETITIONERS AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,

¶34

IN WP. NO.13539/2018

¶35

BETWEEN:

¶36

SRI. C. NARAYANAPPA., DEAD BY HIS LRS.,

¶37

SRI. N. NARAYANASWAMY, S/O. LATE. C. NARAYANAPPA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶38

SRI. N. RAVINDRA, S/O. LATE C. NARAYANAPPA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, BOTH R/AT HEDIGINABELE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶39

…PETITIONERS

¶40

(BY SRI. K. MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:25127 WP No. 58038 of 2018 C/W WP No. 13539 of 2018

¶43

AND:

¶44

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECRETARY, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, MS BUILDING, BANGALORE - 01.

¶45

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.

¶46

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.

¶47

SRI. MUNIYAPPA, S/O LATE BEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT HEDIGINABELE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK - 563 130, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶48

SMT. MUNIYAMMA, W/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT MARADAGHATTA VILLAGE, KYSAMBAHALLI HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130.

¶49

…RESPONDENTS

¶50

(BY SRI. VENKATA SATHYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. TAJUDDIN, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. MADHUSUDHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶51

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER

¶52

NC: 2023:KHC:25127 WP No. 58038 of 2018 C/W WP No. 13539 of 2018

¶53

¶54

DATED:7.2.2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-F GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER DATED:7.2.2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE R-2 OTHERWISE UNTOLD HARDSHIP AND IRREPARABLE INJURY MAY BE CAUSED TO THE PETITIONER RATHER THAN TO THE RESPONDENTS IF THE STAY IS NOT GRANTED AND ETC.,

¶55

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

The purchasers, feeling aggrieved by the order of the respondent No.3/Assistant commissioner, preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner, who allowed the appeal and directed the Tahasildar to hold an enquiry to find out who are the legal heirs of the original grantee, A.K.Avaliga and consequently, has passed a vesting order. The order passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner is challenged by the purchasers in W.P.No.13539/2018 and respondent No.5, claiming to be the legal heir of the original grantee, A.K.Avaliga, has filed W.P.No.58038/2018.

¶58

¶59

NC: 2023:KHC:25127 WP No. 58038 of 2018 C/W WP No. 13539 of 2018

¶60

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner in both

¶61

petitions, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶62

I have given my anxious consideration to the records. Respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner, without examining the inordinate delay of 19 years, has ordered to forfeit the land in question on the ground that alienation is in contravention of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act") and at the same time he has relegated the matter to Tahasildra to ascertain who are the class-I heirs of the original grantee. The order passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner is not at all sustainable in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of

¶63

Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and

¶64

another¹ and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha² .

¶65

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶66

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶67

¶68

NC: 2023:KHC:25127 WP No. 58038 of 2018 C/W WP No. 13539 of 2018

¶69

The law relating to the rights of the legal heir or grantee himself to seek restoration of the land in question in absence of limitation is given a quietus, and the law in that regard is no more res integra. In the present case on hand, there is delay of 19 years in seeking restoration of the land in question. Respondent No.5 claims that she is the only class-I heir of the original grantee, A.K.Avaliga, while respondent No.4 is disputing the status of respondent No.5. The interse dispute between respondents No.4 and 5 is of no consequence. There is no need to decide who is the legal heir of the original grantee, A.K.Avaliga. It is borne out from the records that one Muniyappa s/o Beerappa, along with his son, claiming to be the brother of original grantee A.K.Avaliga, have alienated the land in question under a registered sale deed dated 12.05.1988, in favour of the petitioner's father. Whether the sale deed obtained by the petitioner's father was tainted with fraudulent means is a disputed question of facts that cannot be examined in PTCL proceedings.

¶70

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:25127 WP No. 58038 of 2018 C/W WP No. 13539 of 2018

¶71

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for

¶72

the petitioner in W.P.No.13539/2018, the claim of respondent No.5 was decided by the competent civil Court in O.S.No.432/2007. The judgment rendered by the competent civil court is taken into cognizance by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner, and probably in light of this background, respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner proceeded to reject the restoration petition. If a civil court has decided the claim of respondent No.5 and there are findings of fact that respondent No.5 has failed to establish that she is the class-I heir of original grantee Avaliga, if the status of parties is dealt with and decided by the civil court, the authorities are required to confine their enquiry bearing in mind the inordinate delay in seeking restoration by the so-called persons claiming to be the legal heirs of the original grantee A.K.Avaliga.

¶73

If there is an inordinate delay of 19 years, in

¶74

the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment cited supra, no further enquiry is called for. The

¶75

NC: 2023:KHC:25127 WP No. 58038 of 2018 C/W WP No. 13539 of 2018

¶76

¶77

authorities are bound to out rightly reject the restoration application only on the ground of delay. Therefore, the order passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner in partially remanding the matter to the Tahasildar to hold an enquiry as to who are the legal heirs of the original grantee, A.K.Avaliga is one without jurisdiction. Respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner, while entertaining an appeal under Section 5A of the PTCL Act, had no authority to delegate and direct the Tahasildar to hold an enquiry to ascertain who are the legal heirs of the original grantee. Such a procedure is not contemplated under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The order of vesting of land that is stayed also suffers from illegality and the same is found to be patently erroneous. As there is a delay of 19 years, the right which has vested with the purchaser cannot be set at naught after expiry of 19 years. The law in that regard is quite clear; therefore, I am of the view that the order passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner is liable to be quashed. The writ petition filed by the purchasers in W.P.No.13539/2018

¶78