Allowed

Smt. Shanthamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2023WP/7708/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an eviction order, the High Court of Karnataka held that a 22-year delay in filing a petition for land restoration renders the application maintainable. The court quashed the Deputy Commissioner's order restoring the land to the State, confirming the Assistant Commissioner's earlier decision against restoration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner was quashed; the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner was confirmed.

Smt. Shanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:19045 WP No. 7708 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 7708 OF 2021 (SC-ST)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶8

SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED

¶9

SRI SURENDRA MANJU S/O LATE R KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶10

SRI VIVEKANANDA S/O LATE R KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NEAR CORPORATION BANK SIR M V BASAVANE, HOSKOTE TOWN AND TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU- 562114

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI.H.H.SHETTY, ADVOCATE (NOC))

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE MULTISTORIED BUILDING BENGALURU - 560001

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:19045 WP No. 7708 of 2021

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶19

KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563101

¶20

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB DIVISION, KOLAR - 563101

¶21

SRI NAGARAJU

¶22

S/O K M KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT KADATHUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563101

¶23

SRI K R VENKAT SWAMY S/O CHIKKARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING AT DODDAKADATHUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563101

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.VENKAT SATHYANARYAN, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI.P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI.H.C.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶26

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.18.9.2019 CASE NO. PTCL 3/2018 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT VIDE ANNXURE-J.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:19045 WP No. 7708 of 2021

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The captioned writ petition is filed by the

¶32

petitioners/purchasers feeling aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner ordering for eviction of the petitioners from the petition land.

¶33

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

¶34

.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.

¶35

The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

¶36

Lakshmi, while interpreting Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of

¶37

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶38

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶39

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:19045 WP No. 7708 of 2021

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶43

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶44

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:19045 WP No. 7708 of 2021

¶45

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.

¶46

In the instant case, the petition land was

¶47

granted to one Munishamy on 14.04.1937. After the demise of the original grantee, his sons sold the petition land in favour of one Krishnappa who is the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 under registered sale deed dated 06.11.1986. The respondent

¶48

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:19045 WP No. 7708 of 2021

¶49

No.4 claiming to be the grandson filed a petition seeking restoration of petition land in 2008. The respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner on enquiry rejected the petition on the ground that respondent No.4 has not produced any document to show the relationship with the original grantee. Feeling aggrieved by the order of respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner, the respondent No.4 preferred appeal before respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner. The respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner without examining the gross delay ordered for eviction of the petitioners from the petition land and land stood resumed to the State. This order is challenged only by the purchasers and not by respondent No.4. Therefore, the respondent No.4 has no locus to resist the petition.

¶50

On examination of the material on record, the only question that requires consideration at the hands of this Court is, as to whether respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner erred in ordering for restoration. The

¶51

¶52

NC: 2023:KHC:19045 WP No. 7708 of 2021

¶53

findings and observations made by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner runs contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi ( supra ). The Deputy Commissioner having declined to entertain the claim of the legal heirs of original grantee erred in restoring the lands with the State. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra has clearly held that the authorities should not entertain the petition seeking restoration if petition is not filed within a reasonable time. In the present case on hand, there is delay of 22 years and the same cannot be termed as a reasonable period. Therefore, the order passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner in restoring the land with the State is contrary to the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra.

¶54

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:19045 WP No. 7708 of 2021

¶55

For the reasons stated supra, I pass the

¶56

following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶59

(ii) The impugned order dated 18.09.2019 passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner is hereby quashed and the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner is confirmed;

¶60

(iii) The pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Smt. Shanthamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shanthamma v. the 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

Sri Thimmappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri J N Pushparaju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. M Anjinappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. K. Parvathamma Vs the State of Karnataka

T. Thammaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Bhadrappa Vs Asst Commissioner