Dismissed

Smt Renukamma v. Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2023WP/7707/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application to annul a land sale under the PTCL Act. The court held that the legal heirs' attempt to restore the land was barred by gross delay of 13 years and the daughter's attempt to seek restoration during the original grantee's lifetime.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed on the grounds of gross delay, laches, and lack of independent application.

Smt Renukamma Vs Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:24135 WP No. 7707 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.7707 OF 2021 (SC-ST)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT RENUKAMMA W/O LATE MADAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶10

SRI MANJUNATH S/O LATE MADAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶11

SMT. MAMATHA D/O LATE MADAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.16, KANTEERAVA COLONY 13^TH 'E' CROSS AGARAHARA DASARAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 079

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SMT.LAKSHMI IYENGAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.MOHAMMED SALEHA @ MUKARRAM, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶16

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:24135 WP No. 7707 of 2021

¶19

VISVESWARAIAH TOWERS DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶20

BENGALURU - 560001

¶21

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION D C OFFICE COMPOUND K G ROAD BENGALURU - 560009

¶22

SMT. GANGAMMA W/O GOVINDAPPA AGE MAJOR C/O SRINIVASAMURTHY FARM GANGODNAHALLI VILLAGE DASANPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 562 123

¶23

SMT. SHYLAJA W/O MARIYAPPA AGE MAJOR R/AT NO.350, 57^TH CROSS 3^RD BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 010

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.VENKATASATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R.1 AND R.2; SRI.P.B.AJITH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.4)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN SC/ST (APPEAL) 177/2017 DTD 28.07.2020 CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DTD 19.11.2010 IN K SC.ST 156/2006-07 VIDE ANNX-A AND B AND ETC.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:24135 WP No. 7707 of 2021

¶29

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

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The captioned writ petition is filed by the daughter– in-law and grand children of original grantee Gangarajamma assailing the order of respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner, who has declined to entertain the petition filed under Sections 4 and 5 o f the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act").

¶32

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

¶33

.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

¶34

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶35

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:24135 WP No. 7707 of 2021

¶38

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.

¶39

The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

¶40

Lakshmi, while interpreting Section 5 of the "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

¶41

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶42

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶43

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:24135 WP No. 7707 of 2021

¶44

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 coordinate 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

¶45

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.

¶46

4. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cited judgments, I am not

¶47

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:24135 WP No. 7707 of 2021

¶48

inclined to accede to the argument canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the legal heirs of the grantee. It is quite interesting to note that one of the daughter of original grantee by name Laxmamma filed a petition seeking restoration in 2007. The original grantee, during his lifetime, sold the petition land on 15.09.1994 in favour of respondent No.3, who in turn, sold to respondent No.4 under registered sale deed dated 04.05.1998. What can be gathered from the records is that the original grantee never sought for restoration of the petition land, but strangely the daughter of original grantee during the life time of grantee files a petition seeking restoration. The question that requires consideration before proceeding further is;

¶49

Whether legal heirs of the grantee during the life time of grantee could have invoked the provisions of PTCL Act?

¶50

My answer is emphatic no.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2023:KHC:24135 WP No. 7707 of 2021

¶53

5. In fact, the daughter of original grantee had no locus to seek restoration by annulling the sale transaction in favour of purchasers. Now coming to the delay aspect, I would find that there is a delay of 13 years from the date of first sale. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cited judgments, the diligence is woefully lacking. Further, the grantee during her lifetime having alienated the property by executing the sale deed dated 15.09.1994 never sought for restoration by complaining that alienation is in contravention of the 'PTCL Act'. Therefore, the attempts made by the legal heirs more particularly the daughter at first instance and now, the present petitioners, who are widow and children of one Madahanumaiah, who is the son of grantee only indicates that attempt is made to grab the property by taking recourse to the provisions of the 'PTCL Act'.

¶54

6. In the light of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the catena of judgments rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, the law is clear in

¶55

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:24135 WP No. 7707 of 2021

¶56

regard to a right of a grantee to seek restoration. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if there is inordinate delay, the Assistant Commissioner outrightly rejected the petition only on the ground of delay without getting into merits of the case.

¶57

7. The daughter of original grantee, who filed a petition in 2007 suffered an order as the petition was rejected. The daughter accepts the order passed by respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner. The present petitioners, who are daughter-in-law and grandchildren of original grantee, in absence of any independent application pursue the same petition by filing an appeal before respondent No.1- Deputy Commissioner.

¶58

8. The appeal is filed after lapse of 7 years. The respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner has proceeded to dismiss the appeal only on the ground of delay. Since law is settled, I am not inclined to entertain the petition and the prayer sought in the instant petition. The petitioners admittedly have not filed any independent application

¶59

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:24135 WP No. 7707 of 2021

¶60

seeking restoration of the petition lands. The delay of 7 years in preferring appeal under Section 5A before respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner cannot be condoned as the petitioners do not have any subsisting right and even the equities do not lien in favour of the petitioners. Even if delay was condoned by respondent No.1 – Deputy Commissioner and the matter was taken on merits that could not have altered the decision.

¶61

In the present case on hand, there is a delay of 13 years in initiating action. The authorities below have

¶62

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.

¶63

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

¶64

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:24135 WP No. 7707 of 2021

¶65

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.

¶66

10. The judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel are not applicable to the present case on hand. The facts of this case squarely fall within the lis decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cited judgments. If there is a delay of 13 years in seeking restoration that too not by the original grantee, but by the legal heirs deserves to be outrightly rejected on two counts. Firstly, the petition is by the one of the daughter of grantee during the life time of grantee, therefore, daughter had no locus. Secondly, even otherwise, there is delay of 13 years. The

¶67