Dismissed

Rangaswamy v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC29 May 2023WP/7521/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by a legal heir seeking restoration of land granted under the PTCL Act. The Court held that the application was not maintainable due to a gross delay of 16 years, relying on Supreme Court precedents stating that such powers must be exercised within a reasonable time.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; I.A.No.1/2022 dismissed.

Rangaswamy Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 7521 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 7521 OF 2022 (SCST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RANGASWAMY, S/O. LATE RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT TAALEKERE, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 227.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NAVNEET PATNAM A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M. MADHVACHAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TIPTUR SUB-DIVISION, TIPTUR - 577 201, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶15

HANUMENTHAIAH, S/O. NANJAPPA, RETIRED SHIRASTHEDAR, NEAR H.M.S. SCHOOL,

¶16

¶17

WP No. 7521 of 2022

¶18

KALIDASA NAGAR, SIRA GATE, TUMKUR - 572 101, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. VENKATASATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. MANJUNATH K., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R-1 DTD. 09.08.2021 IN PTCL NO.06/2016-17 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 09.09.1999 IN PTCL NO.SR 10/98-99 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The captioned writ petition is filed by the son of the original grantee feeling aggrieved by the order dated 09.08.2021 passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-H who has set aside the order dated 09.09.1999 passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-E.

¶25

3 - WP No. 7521 of 2022

¶26

Before I advert to the facts of the present case,

¶27

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.

¶28

The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

¶29

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

¶30

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶31

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶32

¶33

WP No. 7521 of 2022

¶34

down in Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav³ and also in the case of Ningappa .vs. Deputy

¶35

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

¶36

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶37

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶38

¶39

WP No. 7521 of 2022

¶40

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.

¶41

In the instance case, the authorities have

¶42

granted the land in favour of the petitioner's father vide order dated 28.01.1975. Land was granted on 07.01.1959 and saguvali chit was issued on 28.01.1975. The original

¶43

grantee sold the portion of the land in favour of respondent No.3 under registered sale deed dated 26.04.1984. The present petitioner, who claimed to be the legal heir of the original grantee, moved the petition seeking restoration and resumption of the petition land in the year 1996. Therefore, the material clearly indicates that there is delay of 12 years. Respondent No.2-Assistant

¶44

¶45

WP No. 7521 of 2022

¶46

Commissioner rejected the petition. The petitioner herein preferred an appeal before respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, who allowed the appeal and remitted it back to respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner. Respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner pursuant to the remand order passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner has taken up the matter for hearing and again rejected the petition. In the second round of litigation, Respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner has declined to grant any relief to the petitioner herein. The Deputy Commissioner found that there is a delay and rejected the appeal only on the ground that the appeal was filed after lapse of 16 years. Respondent No.2Assistant Commissioner after remand, rejected the petition vide order dated 09.09.1999. The petitioner herein preferred an appeal before respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner in 2017. If the petitioner seeking restoration was rejected in 1999, the petitioner ought to have approached the appellant authority and ought to have questioned the order of the Assistant commissioner.

¶47

¶48

WP No. 7521 of 2022

¶49

If appeal is preferred after lapse of 16 years, respondent no.1-Deputy Commissioner was justified in not entertaining the appeal filed by the petitioner herein under Section 5(a) of the PTCL Act, 1978.

¶50

The material on record clearly indicates that the petitioner is not found to be diligent. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra, which is clearly applicable to the present case on hand. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi are applicable even to the proceedings initiated before the Deputy Commissioner by way of an appeal. If the legal heir of the original grantee has kept quiet for 16 years and accepted the order of the Assistant Commissioner who rejected the application seeking restoration of petition lands, this Court, in light of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra, is not inclined to entertain the ground urged in the writ petition. With the passage of time, the rights of the purchaser have to

¶51

¶52

WP No. 7521 of 2022

¶53

crystallize. The inordinate delay on account of gross inaction on the part of the petitioner herein cannot be entertained. Respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner was justified in dismissing the appeal on the sole count of delay of 16 years. The order passed by respondent No.2Assistant Commissioner does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.

¶54

In the present case on hand, there is a delay of 12 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 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

¶55

¶56

WP No. 7521 of 2022

¶57

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.

¶58

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 petitioner seeking resumption and restoration of granted land on the ground that the transfer is in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act is not at all maintainable since the same is not filed within a reasonable period. Both the authorities have taken significance of gross delay and have rightly rejected the petition.

¶59