Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 33791
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 20849 OF 2022 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
MRS. KHADER BEEBI, SINCE DEAD BY HER LR, 1. MR. GAIBAN. K., S/O KAREEM SAB, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT: NO.68, 5TH CROSS, OLD BAGALUR LAYOUT, SAGAYAPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 084, REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER, MR. SATHYANARAYAN. S., S/O SIDDOJI RAO, Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, LAKSHMINARAYAN N KESARU KOPPA VILLAGE, Location: High Court of Karnataka LAKKAVALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK - 577 128.
2. MR. SATHYANARAYAN. S., S/O SIDDOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, KESARU KOPPA VILLAGE, LAKKAVALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK - 577 128.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NISHANTH A V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TARIKERE TALUK, TARIKERE - 577 228.
3. MR. SOMASHEKARA, S/O ARMUGAM, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT: HALASUR VILLAGE AND POST, LAKKAVALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK - 577 128.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATA SATYANARAYANA., AGA FOR R1 & R2;
R3-SERVED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2022 PASSED IN PTCL APPEAL NO.2/2016-17 BY THE R1-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
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.
2. 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.
3. 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 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.
4. In the present case on hand, the petition land was granted to one Marabovi s/o Marabovi on 03.08.1961 and there was a restriction for alienation for a period of 15 years. After the demise of original grantee, his legal heirs sold the petition land in favour of one K.P.Karim Sab on 02.07.1971. The legal heir of the original grantee initiated action by filing an application under Section 4 of the PTCL Act in 2012. The Assistant Commissioner, after notifying the parties has allowed the application and ordered for restoration on the ground that alienation contravenes the provisions of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The said order is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner.
5. In the present case on hand, there is a delay of
41 years in initiating action. The authorities below have 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 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 aft
