Allowed

Sri Kempegowda , v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2023WP/8069/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a remand order regarding land restoration after an 28-year delay. The single-judge High Court held that the delay barred the application and crystallized the petitioners' property rights based on Apex Court precedents, quashing the lower authorities' orders.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the remand order of Respondent 1 and the restoration order of Respondent 2.

Sri Kempegowda , Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:22772 WP No. 8069 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.8069 OF 2023 (SC-ST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI KEMPEGOWDA S/O KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED)

¶9

SRI M.K.PUTTASWAMY S/O KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶10

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MANGALA VILLAGE KOTTATTI HOBLI MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401

¶12

(BY SRI. RAJA L, ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA MANDYA DISTRICT - 571401

¶16

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER MANDYA SUB-DIVISION MANDYA - 571401

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:22772 WP No. 8069 of 2023

¶19

SMT SAROJAMMA W/O SHIVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS MANGALA VILLAGE KOTTATTI HOBLI MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R.1 AND R2; R.3 - SERVED)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER IN PTCL 9/2017 DATED 29.02.2020 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THE R1 VIDE ANNX-J AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The captioned writ petition is filed by the 3^rd purchaser assailing the remand order passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner only on the ground that the legal heirs of the original grantee are not parties to the proceedings.

¶26

In the instant case, the Authorities granted the

¶27

petition land in favour of one Boraiah s/o Gangodi Boraiah

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:22772 WP No. 8069 of 2023

¶29

on 24.06.1953. The original grantee sold the petition land in favour of one H.B.Shivananju s/o H.B.Chikkasiddaiah on 08.02.1985 and the said H.B.Shivananju, in turn, sold the petition land in favour of one Smt.Gowramma D/o late B.Bolegowda on 01.05.1985. Smt.Gowramma, in turn, sold the petition land in favour of petitioner No.1 under registered sale deed dated 17.11.1988. Respondent No.3 filed an application seeking restoration of the land on the ground that the granted land is alienated in contravention of the provisions of the "PTCL Act". This application was filed on 10.04.2013.

¶30

The question that requires consideration at the hands of this Court is;

¶31

As to whether respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another¹ and

¶32

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:22772 WP No. 8069 of 2023

¶35

Vivek M. Hinduja vs. M. Aswatha² erred

¶36

in remanding the matter for fresh enquiry and the remand order passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner amounts to abuse of process of law?

¶37

In the instant case, there is a delay of 28 years in seeking restoration of the land. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited judgments, respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner erred in entertaining a petition seeking restoration of the land. Respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner has also not taken cognizance of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another and Vivek M. Hinduja vs. M. Aswatha (cited above) . The order of remand passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner is not at all sustainable on two counts. If there is a delay of 28 years, the Authorities are required to reject the petition only on the ground of delay. The restoration petition is also liable to be rejected in the law laid down by the 2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:22772 WP No. 8069 of 2023

¶40

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav³ [(2018) 12 SCC 527].

¶41

If Authorities have no jurisdiction only on the ground that there is a delay of 28 years, no purpose would be served to remand the matter for fresh consideration. The valuable right, which are acquired by the petitioners and their vendors, has stood crystallized by passage of time as legal heirs of original grantee have slept over their rights in not seeking restoration of the petition land within reasonable period.

¶42

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment has held that if there is inordinate, unexplained and unjustified delay on the part of the applicant in seeking restoration of the land, such inaction would create a right in favour of other party. Therefore, the Apex Court was of the view that time must be reckoned reasonably, not only in order to preserve the rights and advantages which party possesses but equally to protect each party

¶43

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶44

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:22772 WP No. 8069 of 2023

¶45

from losses he ought not to suffer. The registered sale deeds are public documents and after verifying the public documents, if citizens enter into further transaction believing such public documents to be genuine, the subsequent alienations cannot be set at naught by showing leniency to aggrieved party who has slept over his rights, if rights are crystallized on account of inaction on the part of the original grantee. The said application has to be rejected on this count also.

¶46

In the light of the discussions made supra, respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner erred in entertaining a restoration petition without examining delay of 28 years. The same error is committed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, who has also not taken cognizance of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments citied supra.

¶47

For the foregoing reasons, I pass the following;

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:22772 WP No. 8069 of 2023

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶52

(ii) The remand order dated 29.02.2020 passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-J is hereby quashed.

¶53

(iii) The restoration order dated 10.08.2017 passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner is also not sustainable in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another and Vivek M. Hinduja vs. M. Aswatha (cited above). Therefore, the same is also liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed.

¶54

(iv) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

NBM

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Sri Kempegowda , v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kempegowda , v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Vasantharaja Vs State of Karnataka

Vimalalaya Hospital Trust (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Haridutt S Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Sri. G. J. Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a C Jayappa Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

Sri K T Ramanjinappa Vs the State of Karnataka