The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash orders denying the petitioner's father's grantee right to restore land under the PTCL Act. The Court held that a 15-year delay amounted to gross laches, making the application maintainable and the orders lawful.
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.
WP No. 6258 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 6258 OF 2022 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI C B MANJUNATH S/O LATE SRI A K BHIMAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YERS R/O K C ROAD THEERTHAHALLI TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DIST-577432
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT.SHARADA N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
WP No. 6258 of 2022
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1-R3; SRI.N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI.RAKSHITH JOIS, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 10.01.2022 VIDE ANNX-F PASSED BY THE R-1 IN SCST NO.13/2020 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE R-2.
THIS PETITION, COMING O1N FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the son of the original grantee feeling aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure - F, wherein respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner has confirmed the order dated 20.03.2020 passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner for restoration of the site granted to his father.
WP No. 6258 of 2022
2. Before I advert to the facts of the present case,
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.
3. The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama
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
1 (2020) 14 SCC 232
2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC
WP No. 6258 of 2022
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 application itself was not maintainable since the same was not filed within a reasonable time. While recording the
3 (2018) 12 SCC 527
4 (2020) 14 SCC 236
WP No. 6258 of 2022
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 the 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.
WP No. 6258 of 2022
5. Respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner has
rejected the petition seeking restoration on the ground that the grantee has violated the condition imposed in the grant calling upon the grantee to construct a residential house in the site allotted to him. It is in this context, respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner held that petitioner is not entitled for restoration. Respondent No.1Deputy Commissioner has also declined to entertain the appeal on the ground that the granted property is a site and therefore, the provisions of PTCL Act are not applicable. On examining the reasons assigned by both the authorities, I would find that both the authorities have not examined the gross delay in seeking restoration of the property under the provisions of PTCL Act. Though, respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner have not examined the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi, while entertaining the petition seeking restoration, I am of the view that both the Courts ought to have examined the inordinate delay in the light of
WP No. 6258 of 2022
the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments cited supra. 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 invoke the provisions of PTCL Act is well settled by catena of judgments.
WP No. 6258 of 2022
delay on the part of the applicant in seeking restoration of 5 (2018) 12 SCC 527
WP No. 6258 of 2022
the land, such inaction would create a right in favour of other party. Therefore, the Apex Court was of the view that time must 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. The orders passed Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.1 do not suffer from any illegality and therefore, do not warrant any interference.
WP No. 6258 of 2022
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is devoid of merits and
accordingly, stands dismissed;
Sd/JUDGE
ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the grantee's application for restoration of land under Section 5 of the PTCL Act is maintainable after a gross delay of 15 years.
Whether inordinate delay and laches bar the exercise of jurisdiction to annul alienation under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.
Whether the orders dismissing the appeal and rejecting the restoration petition suffer from any illegality warranting interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and anotherReferred¶33
(2020) 14 SCC 232 · Who else cites this
Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. AswathaReferred¶32
(2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC
Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore YadavExplained¶57
(2018) 12 SCC 527 · Who else cites this
Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and othersExplained¶40
(2020) 14 SCC 236 · Who else cites this
SRI C B MANJUNATH
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA
THE ASSISTANT COMMISISONER SHIVAMOGGA
THE CHIEF OFFICER PATTAN PANCHAYATH
THE PRESIDENT MALNAD CLUB
SMT S VIJAYA
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
