Writ petition challenging reversal of restoration of land granted to SC/ST person. Supreme Court held 59-year delay bars relief under Karnataka PTCL Act.
Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merits due to gross delay of 59 years. Pending applications disposed off.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:24763 WP No. 9908 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.9908 OF 2022 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SRI.KENCHAPPA S/O R NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O BAGALUR COLONY JALA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK BENGALURU - 560064 (NOTE SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT IS NOT CLAIMED) REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI. VAMSHI S S/O SRI. SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/O BYRANDAHALLI VILLAGE KOLAR DISTRICT - 563101
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.NARAYANA MAYYAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.S R HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5 ARE R/AT LAKE VIEW FARM RAMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE WHITEFILED POST BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU 560066
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R.1 AND R.2; SRI.GURURAJ B, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.3, R.3 AND R.5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT AT BENGALURU DTD 05.01.2022 AT SC.ST (APPEAL) 109/2018 DTD 05.01.2022 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNX-F AND RESTORE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU DTD. 03.08.2016 IN K.SC.ST.53/2014-15 PRODUCED AS ANNX-E BY ISSUING WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER AS THE CASE MAY BE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the legal heirs of original grantee assailing divergent orders passed by the Authorities. Respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner has allowed the restoration proceedings and ordered for resumption. Respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, however, has reversed the order of restoration by allowing the appeal filed by the purchasers.
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
1 (2020) 14 SCC 232
2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC
NC: 2023:KHC:24763 WP No. 9908 of 2022
by the Division Bench in W.A.No.16/2021 disposed of on 05.04.2021.
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
3 (2018) 12 SCC 527
4 (2020) 14 SCC 236
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 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.
5 (2018) 12 SCC 527
of 59 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 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.
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is devoid of merits
and accordingly, stands dismissed.
(ii) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.
Sd/JUDGE
NBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for annulment of alienation under Section 4 and Section 5(2) of PTCL Act is maintainable given a delay of 59 years?
Does gross delay and laches act as an impediment to invoking provisions where no statutory limitation is prescribed?
Whether the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner reversing restoration stands upheld due to inordinate delay?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and anotherFollowed¶35
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and another (2020) 14 SCC 232 · Who else cites this
Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. AswathaReferred¶29
Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC
Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore YadavExplained¶35
Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (2018) 12 SCC 527 · Who else cites this
Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and othersExplained¶42
Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and others (2020) 14 SCC 236 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI.KENCHAPPA S/O R NARAYANAPPA (By GPA Holder SRI. VAMSHI)
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DIST
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION
SMT C.PARVATHI KUMAR D/O LATE A.K. NAIDU
SRI G.KATHREERAVAN S/O GOVINDASWAMY
SMT.SUSHEELA W/O NAGARAJU GOWDA
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
