Dismissed

Smt. Muniyamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Jul 2023WP/6459/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by legal heirs challenging orders rejecting their application to resume land granted to a deceased original grantee. The court held that a 42-year delay in filing the application barred them from invoking provisions under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Tribes Act due to gross laches.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition being devoid of merits due to gross delay is dismissed; pending applications disposed off.

Smt. Muniyamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:26178 WP No. 6459 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.6459 OF 2023 (SC-ST)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT.MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶10

(BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED)

¶11

SRI.MUNIRAJU S/O LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

BOTH ARE R/OF HEDAGIANABELE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563130

¶14

(BY SRI. RAMESH KUMAR R V, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU - 01 REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:26178 WP No. 6459 of 2023

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563101

¶21

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563101

¶22

THE THASILDHAR MALUR TALUK MALUR-563130

¶23

CHINNASWAMY DEAD BY LRS

¶24

5(A) SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶25

5(B) SMT.GOPAMMA D/O CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶26

5(C) SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA D/O CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶27

5(D) SMT. BALAMMA D/O CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶28

5(E) SMT.RADHAMMA D/O CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶29

5(F) SRI.BALARAJU S/O CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:26178 WP No. 6459 of 2023

¶32

SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS

¶33

RESPONDENT NOS.5 & 6 ARE R/AT HEDAGIANABELE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563130

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI.VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R.1 TO R.4)

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DTD 28/06/2018, IN LND (MLR) SC/ST-66/ 2011-12 ANNEXURE-E BY THE R-3 AND THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER DTD 28/09/2022 IN PTCL/02/2020 AT ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE R-2 AND ETC.

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The captioned writ petition is filed by the legal heirs

¶40

of the original grantee assailing the concurrent orders of the authorities below, who have declined to entertain an application filed by the petitioners seeking resumption of the land on the ground that there is a delay of 42 years in seeking resumption.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:26178 WP No. 6459 of 2023

¶43

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.

¶44

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

¶45

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶46

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶47

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:26178 WP No. 6459 of 2023

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶51

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶52

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:26178 WP No. 6459 of 2023

¶53

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.

¶54

In the present case on hand, the petition land

¶55

was granted to Muniga @ Dharmojappa on 24.01.1941. The original grantee, during his lifetime, has alienated the land in question in favour of Chinnaswamy under registered sale deed dated 13.03.1970. The petitioners, who claim to be the legal heirs of the original grantee, initiated action by filing an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the "PTCL Act". The respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner, after notifying the parties, has dismissed the restoration petition on the ground that there is a delay

¶56

¶57

NC: 2023:KHC:26178 WP No. 6459 of 2023

¶58

of 32 years in seeking resumption. The said order is confirmed by the respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner.

¶59

In the present case on hand, there is a delay of 42 years in initiating action. The authorities below have rightly 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(2) 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

¶60

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:26178 WP No. 6459 of 2023

¶61

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

¶62

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 petitioners seeking resumption and restoration of granted land on the ground that the transfer is in violation of Sections 4 and 5 of the "PTCL Act" is not at all maintainable since the same is not filed within a reasonable period. Both the Authorities have taken cognizance of gross delay and have rightly rejected the petition.

¶63