Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 32611
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 13697 OF 2022 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE MUNIMALLAPPA @
MUNIMALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O ANNEGHATTA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. C JAGADISH, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE-562110.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, Digitally signed DODDABALLAPURA, by BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561203.
MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIG H COURT OF 3. SMT. GAYATHRI PRASAD KARNATAKA W/O SHRI KRISHNA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O AT NO.1151, 11TH MAIN ROAD, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, BANGALORE-560040.
4. M/S. M.S.K. HOLDINGS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.2/16, 11TH CROSS, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, 2ND STAGE, MAHALAKSHMIPURA, BENGALURU -560086, REP. BY ITS PARTNER, SHRI MALLIGA SAINATH.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKAT SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 &2 SRI VAMSHI CHANDRASHEKARA, ADV. FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2021 VIDE NO.LND/SC-ST(A)24/2018 PASSED BY THE R1,PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 17.02.2018 PASSED BY THE R2 IN NO.PTCL SR (DH)43/011.12 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D 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 son of the original grantee feeling aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner who has rejected the petition seeking restoration on the ground that the petition seeking restoration is not substantiated by any documentary evidence. The said order is confirmed by the respondent No.1 - Deputy 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 bearing Sy.No.117/1 measuring 3 acres was granted to the father of the petitioner herein free of cost vide order dated 30.12.1960. The legal heir of grantee during his lifetime sold the petition land in favour of third respondent under registered sale deed dated 17.04.1996. The third respondent in turn sold the same in favour of fourth respondent under registered sale deed dated 20.08.2007. The present petitioner who claims to be the legal heir of original grantee initiated action by filing an application under Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner after notifying the parties has dismissed the application on the ground that the claim of petitioner is not substantiated by any documentary evidence under 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
12 years in initiating action. 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 ju
