A petitioner seeking restoration of scheduled caste land alienated by his father after 35 years sought quashing of orders rejecting his application. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the application was not maintainable due to inordinate delay and laches.
Writ petition stood dismissed; pending interlocutory applications rejected.
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.
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. 9381 OF 2022 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI. BHEEMA NAIK S/O LATE SHANKAR NAIK AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT SOMALPURA VILLAGE SANTHEBENNUR HOBLI CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN CODE - 577552
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.GOPI P.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SIDDAMALLAPPA P M MYLARAIAH ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
BENGALURU - 560001
WP No. 9381 of 2022
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN CODE - 577001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.02.2021 PASSED BY THE R3 IN CASE NO.PTCL 20/2020-21 AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
WP No. 9381 of 2022
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the son of the original grantee feeling aggrieved by the concurrent orders passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure - F and respondent No.3 - Assistant
Commissioner vide Annexure - E.
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.
1 (2020) 14 SCC 232
2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC
WP No. 9381 of 2022
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 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
3 (2018) 12 SCC 527
4 (2020) 14 SCC 236
WP No. 9381 of 2022
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 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.
WP No. 9381 of 2022
was granted to the petitioner's grandfather on 06.07.1962. After the death of original grantee, his son namely Shankar Naik inherited the property in question and alienated the petition land under registered sale deed dated 09.05.1985. The petitioner, who is the son of Shankar Naik and grandson of original grantee, filed an application seeking resumption and restoration of the granted land by invoking Section 5 of the PTCL Act. This application is filed in the year 2020. Therefore, this Court would find that there is a delay of 35 years.
WP No. 9381 of 2022
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. 9381 of 2022
filed by the legal heirs of original grantee, both Authorities have rightly rejected the application on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the original grantee in moving the application since there is a delay of 35 years. Therefore, the orders passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 do not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.
ORDER
The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they are rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a resumption application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act maintaining after 35 years is maintainable in absence of statutory limitation.
Whether gross delay and laches bar relief under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and anotherApplied¶33
(2020) 14 SCC 232 · Who else cites this
Vivek M. Hinduja vs. M. AswathaReferred¶33
(2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC
Chhedi Lal Yadav vs. Hari Kishore YadavReferred¶38
(2018) 12 SCC 527 · Who else cites this
Ningappa vs. Deputy Commissioner and othersApplied¶38
(2020) 14 SCC 236 · Who else cites this
unspecifiedRelied on¶45
W.P.No.50446 of 2012
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI. BHEEMA NAIK
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE
SRI PUTTARAMRAO
SMT. JAYASHREE
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
