Delay in invoking provisions of beneficial legislation can disentitle a party from relief, especially when the sale deed was executed without prior permission.

CAV JUDGMENT

( PER: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF )

This case resembles a situation, wherein a party/litigant disentitles himself from getting any relief under the provisions of a Beneficial Enactment, for the delay and latches and the conduct as well, attributable to him/her.

2. This appeal is by the descendants in interest of the grantee, calling in question the order dated 07.09.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No.24438/2009.

3. The facts leading to the case are as under: The land bearing old survey No.57, New Survey No.209 measuring 1 acre, situated at Singena Agrahara Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District was granted in favour of Smt.Chikkavenkatamma @ Venkatamma, who belonged to Scheduled Caste in LNDSR 19/80-81, dated 30.01.1982. The original grantee Smt.Chikkavenkatama @ Venkatamma conveyed the subject land in favour of respondent No.4 through a registered sale deed dated 16.11.1996, which was registered on 15.06.1998. In the interregnum, permission was obtained as contemplated under Section-4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PTCL Act’ for brevity) for conveying the property. Respondent No.4 in turn sold the property in favour of respondent No.6 herein by executing a registered sale deed dated 15.03.2004.

4. Original grantee – mother of Sri.Venkataswamy - respondent No.4 in the writ petition, filed an application, under Section-4 of PTCL Act, before the Respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, in the year 2005. The said application was registered as KSC/SC/2005-2006. The respondent No.6 herein was not made as a party and he got impleaded as a party – respondent No.4 before respondent No.2. On contest, respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner by an order dated 25.02.2007 rejected the petition filed by the mother of Sri.Venkataswamy (father of the appellants herein). During the pendency of the proceedings before respondent No.2, original grantee Smt.ChikkaVenkatamma expired and the father of the appellants herein Sri.Venkataswamy was brought on record as legal representative. Aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner, father of the appellants viz., Sri.Venkataswamy preferred an appeal before the Respondent No.1 – Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District. The respondent No.1 by an order dated 03.07.2009 set-aside the order passed by respondent No.2 and allowed the application filed by the original grantee i.e., mother of Sri.Venkataswamy for resumption and restoration of the subject land, on the premise that, when the sale deed was executed on 16.11.1996, there was no permission as per Section-4(2) of PTCL Act. Further, there was a direction to respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 –Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk to take necessary action, as well as make necessary entries in the revenue records.

5. Aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.1, respondent No.6 - Sri.Thippaiah the subsequent purchaser from respondent No.4 – T.Sudhakar, knocked the doors of this Court in W.P.No.24438/2009. During the pendency of the writ petition, son of original grantee Sri.Venkataswamy expired and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos.4(a) to 4(e). Respondent Nos.4(a) to 4(d) were represented through their GPA Holder i.e., Respondent No.5 herein. Subsequently, respondent No.5, Sri.C.Venkatesh has been impleaded as a party respondent No.6 by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge.

6. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties allowed the writ petition, reasoning that, though the document was presented for registration on 16.11.1996, however, as there was an objection raised by the Sub-Registrar to register the document for short of permission to convey the land, the sale deed ultimately was registered on 15.06.1998 i.e., after obtaining a valid permission fro