Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 37555
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 49407 OF 2017 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
SMT. BHEEMAKKA, W/O. THIMMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT KULUVEHALLI, THALAK HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK - 577 522, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.M. SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, Location: High Court of Karnataka CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
3. SMT. PALAMMA (DEAD), NO LRS;
W/O LATE. KATTE PALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
4. SRI. SANNOBAIAH (DEAD), S/O LATE. KATTE PALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
5. SRI. PALAIAH @ GUNDAPPA, S/O LATE. KATTE PALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NOS. 3 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT KALUVEHALLI, THALAK HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK - 577 522 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
6. JAYAMMA, W/O. SANNOBAIAH 7. MANJUNATHA, S/O. SANNOBAIAH
8. PRAHLAD, S/O. SANNOBAIAH
9. RAVI, S/O. SANNOBAIAH, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF KALUVE HALLI, TALUK HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 522.
RESPONDENT NOS. 6 TO 9 ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED R4 AS PER ORDER DATED 06/06/2023.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2., NOTICE SERVED TO R5, R6, R7, R8, AND R9;
VIDE ORDER DATED 12/01/2023 PETITION AGAINST R3 STANDS ABATED.)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE NO.SCPTL (CLK) 302:1996-97 DATED 05.01.2007, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CASE NO.STPL (A) 26/2007-08 DATED 07.06.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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 Katte Palaiah, who is the husband of respondent No.3 and father of respondents No.4 and 5 on 14.09.1959. After demise of original grantee, his widow and children/respondents No.3 and 4, sold the petition land in favour of Thimmarayappa, who is the husband of petitioner herein under registered sale deed dated 27.01.1983. Respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner has initiated suo-moto proceedings in 1996. There is delay of 13 years in initiating restoration proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi, has held that petition seeking restoration of land has to be made within a reasonable time. A reasonable time is also applicable to the authorities. If there is delay of 13 years, respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner erred in invoking the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978. Respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner has also erred in not examining inordinate delay in initiating restoration proceedings under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The order passed by respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner ordering restoration is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment has held that where statute does not provide f
