Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 28966
- 1 -
NC: 2023:KHC:19044
WP No. 1990 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 1990 OF 2019 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI H J NARASIMHA MURTHY
S/O SRI.JAYARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NO.44, 1ST CROSS,
NANJAPPA LAYOUT, ADUGODI,
BENGALURU-560030
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE(NOC))
AND:
1.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560009.
2.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560009.
3.
SRI THIMMARAYAPPA
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
SINCE DEAD BY LRs
Digitally
signed by
ALBHAGYA
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2023:KHC:19044
WP No. 1990 of 2019
3A. SMT.AKKAYAMMA,
W/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
3B. SRI.RAJU
S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
3C. SRI.VENKATESH,
S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
3D. SRI.PRAKASH,
S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO.3(A) TO 3(D) ARE R/AT
BAHADURPURA, WARD NO.23,
ANEKAL TOWN, ANEKAL
BENGALURU-562106.
4.
SMT.LAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
BAHADURPURA, WARD NO.23,
ANEKAL TOWN, ANEKAL
BENGALURU-562106.
5.
SRI MOHAMMED NOORULLA
S/O LATE MOHAMMED PASHA, @ SUNNA SAB,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
6.
SRI MOHAMMED RAHAMATHULLA
S/O LATE MOHAMMED PASHA @ SUNNA SAB,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
- 3 -
NC: 2023:KHC:19044
WP No. 1990 of 2019
7.
SRI MOHAMMED ANNSARULLA
S/O LATE MOHAMMED PASHA @ SUNNA SAB,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
8.
SRI MOHAMMED SHAFIULLA
S/O MOHAMMED NOORULLA,
MAJOR IN AGE
9.
SRI PARVIZ AHAMED
S/O MOHAMMED RAHAMATHULLA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
10. SRI BABU @ NAYAZ
S/O MOHAMMED RAHAMATHULLA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
11. SRI MOHAMMED ABBAR
S/O MOHAMMED ANZAR,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 11 ARE
R/AT NO.110, 4TH MAIN,
VENKATAREDDY NAGAR,
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011.
12. SRI S CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O A.SUBBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YARS,
R/AT NO.90, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
CHBS 1ST STAGE,
PADMANABHANAGARA,
BENGALURU-560070.
13. SMT RATHNAMMA
W/O JAYARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
- 4 -
NC: 2023:KHC:19044
WP No. 1990 of 2019
R/AT NO.44, 1ST CROSS,
NANJAPPA LAYOUT,
AUDUGODI, BENGALURU-560030.
14. SRI N BABU
S/O C.N.ASHWATHNARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O SOPPAHALLI VILLAGE,
SIDDHI HOSKOTE POST,
KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-562106.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1 & 2;
SRI.MALTHESH.S.R, ADVOCATE FOR R3(B-D);
SRI.SRIDHAR.B.R, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
V/O DTD: 18/1/2022 NOTICE TO R3(A) IS H/S;
V/O DTD: 13/9/2021 NOTICE TO R5 TO 12 IS H/S;
R13 & 14 SERVED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 02.06.2011 IN CASE PASSED BY THE R-2
ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU
SOUTH
SUB-
DIVISION, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ALSO THAT
OF THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2016 IN CASE PASSED BY THE R-
1
DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU
DISTRICT,
BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
- 5 -
NC: 2023:KHC:19044
WP No. 1990 of 2019
The captioned writ petition is filed by the purchaser
feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent
No.2/Assistant Commissioner ordering for restoration of
petition land and the order passed by the respondent
No.1/Deputy Commissioner confirming the order of the
Assistant Commissioner.
Before I advert to the facts of the present case,
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
- 6 -
The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama
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
- 7 -
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.
The principles laid down by the Apex Court in
Chhedi Lal Yadav (supra) is also squarely applicable to
the present case on hand. The Apex Court was of the view
- 8 -
that if there is inordinate, unexplained and unjustified
delay on the part of the applicant in seeking restoration of
the land, such inaction would create a right in favour of
other party. Therefore, the Apex Court was of the view
that time must be reckoned reasonably, not only in order
to preserve the rights and advantages which party
possesses but equally to protect each party from losses he
ought not to suffer. The registered sale deeds are public
documents and after verifying the public documents, if
citizens enter into further transaction believing such public
documents to be genuine, the subsequent alienations
cannot be set at naught by showing leniency to aggrieved
party who has slept over his rights, if rights are
crystallized on account of inaction on the part of the
original grantee. The said application has to be rejected on
this count also.
In the instant case, land was granted in favour
of
one
Doddagurappa
who
is
the
grandfather
of
respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 15.02.1942. The original
- 9 -
grantee mortgaged the land in favour of father of
respondent Nos.5 to 11 by ex
