Dismissed

Sri. M Anjinappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2023WP/8260/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by legal heirs challenging a Deputy Commissioner's order setting aside an Assistant Commissioner's restoration direction. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that invoking the PTCL Act after a 43-year delay was outside reasonable time, rendering the application not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

Sri. M Anjinappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 8260 of 2022

¶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. 8260 OF 2022 (SC-ST)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. M ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS S/O LATE A K MUNIYAPPA

¶8

SMT.VENKATALAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS W/O SRI M MUNIYAPPA

¶9

SMT. MAMATHA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS D/O SRI MUNIBACHAPPA

¶10

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI.M YOGESH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS D/O SRI MUNIBACHAPPA

¶12

SRI. ABHISHEK AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O SRI MUNIBACHAPPA

¶13

SRI. MUNIKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O SRI M ANJINAPPA

¶14

SRI MURALI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O SRI M ANJINAPPA

¶15

¶16

WP No. 8260 of 2022

¶17

SRI MUNIBACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O A K MUNIYAPPA

¶18

SMT. MUNI AKKAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS D/O LATE A K MUNIYAPPA

¶19

SMT. KRISHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS D/O LATE A K MUNIYAPPA

¶20

SMT. RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS D/O LATE A K MUNIYAPPA

¶21

ALL ARE RESIDING AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, JALA POST BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK BENGALURU - 560 064

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI. LOKESH R, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU - 560 001

¶26

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU - 560 001

¶27

SRI MUNIYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶28

3 - WP No. 8260 of 2022

¶29

A) SMT. MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA

¶30

SRI SHIVANNA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶31

A SMT. NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O LATE SHIVANNA

¶32

B SMT. CHAITHRA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS D/O LATE SHIVANNA

¶33

C SRI CHETHAN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS S/O LATE SHIVANNA

¶34

D SMT. PAVITHRA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS D/O LATE SHIVANNA

¶35

SRI NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O SRI MUNIYAPPA

¶36

SRI MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O SRI MUNIYAPPA

¶37

SRI MUNIKRISHNAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶38

A SMT. BHAVYA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS W/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA @ MUNIKRISHNA

¶39

¶40

WP No. 8260 of 2022

¶41

B KUM M PREETHI

¶42

AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS D/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA @ MUNIKRISHNA

¶43

C KUM M SNEHA AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, D/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA @ MUNIKRISHNA

¶44

NOS.7(B) AND 7(C) ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER/ NATURAL GUARDIAN

¶45

SMT.BHAVYA - RESPONDENT NO.7(A)

¶46

SRI DEVARAJA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O SRI MUNIYAPPA

¶47

RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT HOOVINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, B K HALLI POST BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK

¶48

SRI MANJUNATH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶49

A SMT.LAKSHMIDEVI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS W/O LATE MANJUNATH

¶50

B KUM. VANAJA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS D/O LATE MANJUNATH

¶51

¶52

WP No. 8260 of 2022

¶53

SRI ABHINATHA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O MUNIBACHAPPA

¶54

SMT. BACHAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS D/O LATE A K MUNIYAPPA

¶55

SMT. SUBBAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS D/O LATE A K MUNIYAPPA

¶56

RESPONDENT NOS.9 TO 12 ARE RESIDING AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI JALA POST, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK BENGALURU - 560 064

¶57

THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS EMPLOYEE'S CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED A HOUSING SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.419, 1^ST FLOOR, 12^TH CROSS SADASHIVANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 080 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT

¶58

SRI V.RAVINDER RAO

¶59

AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS S/O GOPAL RAO R/AT NO.340, SECTOR -A 13^TH MAIN, YELAHANAKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU - 560 064

¶60

…RESPONDENTS

¶61

(BY SRI.CHETAN B, ADVOCATE FOR R.3; SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R.1 AND R.2)

¶62

¶63

WP No. 8260 of 2022

¶64

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NO.SC.ST. (APPEAL) 15/2020 DATED 10.12.2020 VIDE ANNEXUE-K AND ETC.

¶65

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

¶66

ORDER

¶67

The writ petition is filed by the legal heirs of original grantee questioning the order of respondent No.1

¶68

Deputy Commissioner, who has allowed the appeal filed by the purchaser and has set-aside the order passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner ordering for restoration of the petition land.

¶69

Before I advert to the facts of the present case,

¶70

it would be useful to refer to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court on this issue in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi

¶71

vs. State of Karnataka and another¹ and Vivek M.

¶72

Hinduja vs. M. Aswatha² . It would be also useful to

¶73

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶74

2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

¶75

¶76

WP No. 8260 of 2022

¶77

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.

¶78

The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

¶79

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

¶80

3 (2018) 12 SCC 527

¶81

4 (2020) 14 SCC 236

¶82

¶83

WP No. 8260 of 2022

¶84

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 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 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.

¶85

¶86

WP No. 8260 of 2022

¶87

In the instant case, the land was granted to the petitioners grand father on 24.09.1941. The original grantee sold 2 acres of land in favour of one Dasappa under registered sale deed dated 25.04.1962. The original grantee sold the remaining portion of 2 acres 7 guntas of land in favour of one A.K.Muniyappa under registered sale deed dated 09.09.1971. The original grantee in the year 1971 has meddled and sold the entire granted land. The grand children of original grantee have moved an application seeking restoration of the petition land in the year 2005. There is a delay of 43 years.

¶88

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

¶89

43 years in initiating action. The respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner has 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(2) of the PTCL Act requires to be rejected. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited

¶90

10 -

¶91

WP No. 8260 of 2022

¶92

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.

¶93

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 petitioners 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.

¶94