Allowed

Sri Thimmappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2023WP/6647/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition for quashing restorative orders under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the petition and set aside the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. The Court held that the grantees' application filed after a delay of 22 years was not maintainable due to

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed and the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner ordering the restoration of the petition land were set aside.

Sri Thimmappa Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 6647 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 6647 OF 2016 (SCST)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. THIMMAPPA, SON OF LATE. BHANDARI NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶8

SRI. KENCHAPPA, SON OF LATE BHANDARI NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶9

SRI GONEPPA, SON OF LATE BHANDARI NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶10

SRI REVANAPPA, SON OF LATE BHANDARI NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N

¶12

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

ALL RESIDING AT THALIKATTE VILLAGE,

¶14

HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. P. M. SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,

¶19

¶20

WP No. 6647 of 2016

¶21

M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE - 577 001.

¶23

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION, DAVANAGERE - 577 001.

¶24

THE TAHSILDAR, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, CHANNAGIRI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213.

¶25

SMT. KENCHAVVA, WIFE OF LATE. HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANCHIGANAHAL VILALGE, UMRANI HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. THIPPESWAMY. T, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.10.6.2013, PASSED BY THE R-3 AT ANNEX-C. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.7.12.2015 PASSED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEX-D.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

WP No. 6647 of 2016

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The captioned writ petition is filed by the purchaser feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner ordering for restoration of petition land and the order passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner.

¶34

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

¶35

.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.

¶36

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶37

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶38

¶39

WP No. 6647 of 2016

¶40

3. The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

¶41

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 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

¶42

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶43

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶44

¶45

WP No. 6647 of 2016

¶46

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 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.

¶47

In the present case on hand, the petition land was granted to Kenchavva, who is respondent No.5 herein, in 1977, and there was a restriction on alienation for a

¶48

¶49

WP No. 6647 of 2016

¶50

period of 15 years. The respondent No.5 along with her children, sold the petition land in favour of father of petitioner herein under registered sale deed dated 11.07.1990. The original grantee initiated action by filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act on 29.08.2011. There is a delay of 22 years. The respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner has not taken cognizance of the inordinate delay while ordering for restoration. The respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner also erred in not examining inordinate delay. Both authorities, only on the presumption that alienation is in contravention of Section 4 of the PTCL Act, have proceeded to restore the petition land. The said order runs contrary to the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra. Therefore, the order passed by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner ordering for restoration and order passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner confirming the order of respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner are not sustainable and liable to be set aside.

¶51

¶52

WP No. 6647 of 2016

¶53

In the present case on hand, there is a delay of 22 years in initiating action. The authorities below have

¶54

not 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 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.

¶55

¶56

WP No. 6647 of 2016

¶57

In the instant case, diligence is woefully

¶58

lacking. There is a gross delay of 22 years in initiating action. Therefore, the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner was not justified in entertaining the application. For the reasons stated supra, the order passed by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner

¶59

and the order passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner are liable to be quashed.

¶60

7. Hence, I pass the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶63

(ii) The order passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-D and the order passed by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner vide AnnexureC are hereby set aside.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

hdk

Sri Thimmappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Thimmappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Rathnamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Shivarudrappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mr. a.C.Basavaraja Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri J N Pushparaju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. M Anjinappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. P. Balaramaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner