Writ petition for restoration of granted land dismissed. Court held petition non-maintainable due to 43-year delay and for lack of evidence proving original grant.
Writ petition dismissed; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP No. 8724 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 8724 OF 2022 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SMT. HANUMANTHAMMA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS DIDAGURU, GOVINAKOVI HOBLI HONNALLI TALLU DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577002.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HIREMATHAD MAHESHIAH RUDRAYYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577201.
WP No. 8724 of 2022
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O ALADAHALLI VILLAGE SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577201.
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577201.
WP No. 8724 of 2022
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577201.
R/O KANASINAKATTE BHADRAVATHI TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577201.
14. K N BASAVARAJAPPA S/O NAGESHAPPA
AGED MAJOR
RESPONDENT NO.13 AND 14 ARE
R/O KOMMANAL VILLAGE
SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577201.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1-R2;
SRI.S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R4-R14)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
WP No. 8724 of 2022
DTD.18.6.2020 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN SC/ST/24/2011-12 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURER-D, CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DTD.30.9.2011 IN NO.PTCL/CR02/2010-11 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though the matter is listed for orders, the same is
taken up for final hearing as the law in regard to restoration of granted land under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act") is no more res integra. Therefore, if the writ petition is decided on merits, no prejudice will be caused to the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.3.
WP No. 8724 of 2022
Commissioner in rejecting the petition seeking restoration
of land.
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.
Lakshmi, while interpreting Section 5 of 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
1 (2020) 14 SCC 232
2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC
WP No. 8724 of 2022
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 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
3 (2018) 12 SCC 527
4 (2020) 14 SCC 236
WP No. 8724 of 2022
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.
the petition land was granted to his father in the year 1962. Both the authorities have verified the document and have recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner has failed to substantiate that the said land was granted to her father Neelappa. Therefore, both the authorities have declined to treat the petition land as granted land and consequently have declined to exercise power conferred on respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner to order for restoration of land. The said concurrent orders are under challenged by the petitioner.
WP No. 8724 of 2022
restoration of land under the provisions of PTCL Act is no more res integra . In the present case on hand, the sale deed is of the year 1967 and the application seeking restoration is filed by the legal heirs in the year 2010. There is a delay of 43 years in initiating action. The
WP No. 8724 of 2022
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 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.
WP No. 8724 of 2022
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. The said application has to be rejected on this count also.
following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed.
The pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking restoration of land under the PTCL Act is maintainable given the gross delay of 43 years.
Whether the denial of restoration due to lack of documentary evidence substantiating the original grant warrants judicial interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and anotherReferred¶57
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and another (2020) 14 SCC 232 · Who else cites this
Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. AswathaReferred¶57
Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC
Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore YadavReferred¶65
Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (2018) 12 SCC 527 · Who else cites this
Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and othersReferred¶65
Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and others (2020) 14 SCC 236 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
SMT. HANUMANTHAMMA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA
SMT HALAMMA K W/O K BASAPPA
SMT K B CHANDRAMMA W/O BASAVARAJAPPA
K B MANJAPPA S/O LATE K BASAPPA
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
