Dismissed

Sri.N.v.Shankar v. Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC19 Jul 2023WP/5981/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court Single Judge dismissed a writ petition filed by a grandson challenging the rejection of multiple applications to restore land alienated by his grandfather under the PTCL Act. The court held the petition was barred due to a 56-year delay and inadmissibility of a second petition on the same cause of action.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it was found to be devoid of merits due to inordinate delay and maintainability issues.

Sri.N.v.Shankar Vs Deputy Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:25190 WP No. 5981 of 2022

¶2

¶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. 5981 OF 2022 (SCST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.N. V.SHANKAR S/O LATE VARADAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NEETIMANGALA VILLAGE SHEELANERE HOBLI, K R PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VISHWANATH R HEGDE., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571401

¶14

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PANDAVAPURA SUB DIVISION PANDAVAPURA

¶15

SRI RAMEGOWDA S/O MUDDULINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶16

SRI DEVEGOWDA S/O MUDDULINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶17

SRI NINGEGOWDA S/O MUDDULINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:25190 WP No. 5981 of 2022

¶20

6. SRI BORALINGEGOWDA S/O MUDDULINGEGOWDA

¶21

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶22

RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 ARE R/AT NEETIMANGALA VILLAGE, NEELANERE HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571435

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. VENKATASATHYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.07.1981 PASSED BY THE R2 ANNEXURE-D AND QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 31.05.2016 ISSUED BY THE R2 ANNEXURE-F AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.01.2021 IN PTCL 08/2016 PASSED BY THE R1 ANNEXURE-K.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The captioned writ petition is filed by the grandson of the original grantee assailing the order dated 31.07.1981 passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-D and order dated 29.01.2021 passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-K, wherein the application seeking restoration is rejected by both the authorities.

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:25190 WP No. 5981 of 2022

¶30

Before I advert to the facts of the present case,

¶31

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.

¶32

The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

¶33

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

¶34

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶35

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶36

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:25190 WP No. 5981 of 2022

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶40

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶41

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:25190 WP No. 5981 of 2022

¶42

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.

¶43

In the present case on hand, the original grantee during the lifetime has alienated the land in 1960 and has filed an application seeking restoration in the year 1979. The said application was rejected on 31.07.1981. The present petitioner herein has filed second application seeking restoration in the year 2016. This application was also rejected.

¶44

In the instant case, this Court would find that

¶45

there is a delay of 56 years in filing the petition by the petitioner herein. While the original grantee suffered an

¶46

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:25190 WP No. 5981 of 2022

¶47

order, he again moved an application after an inordinate delay of 19 years. 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,

¶48

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.

¶49

The restoration petition filed by the petitioner herein is liable to be rejected in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment cited supra. If original grantee has suffered an order and his application seeking restoration was rejected in the year 1981, the present

¶50

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC:25190 WP No. 5981 of 2022

¶52

petitioner, claiming to be the grandson could not have maintained the second application in the year 2016.

¶53

The second application seeking resumption is not maintainable as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Narayanaswamy vs. The District Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Others⁵ . The relevant paragraph of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench is as under:

¶54

"11. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts and circumstances, we are of the view that once the proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act are filed/initiated and the same are either withdrawn or dismissed on merits, a fresh petition/second petition on the same cause of action and the same subject matter under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The second petition is clearly barred by the principles of estoppel, acquiescence, abandonment and waiver. Accordingly, though a finding in this regard has not been recorded by either the Learned Single Judge or the authorities, having regard to the undisputed material on record, a second petition under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act would not be maintainable and the same is liable to be rejected on this ground alone."

¶55

5 ILR 2020 KAR 303

¶56

NC: 2023:KHC:25190 WP No. 5981 of 2022

¶57

¶58

Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the

¶59

concurrent orders passed by the authorities.

¶60