Karnataka High Court
Sri.T.Srinivasa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 15 December, 2018
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G. Narendar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
WRIT PETITION Nos. 3035-3036 OF 2014 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
Sri T. Srinivasa
S/o Sri Tangidappa
Aged about 42 years
R/at Ramakrishnapura Village
Somenahalli Hobli
Gudibande Taluk-561209
Chikkaballapur District. ...Petitioner
(By Sri T. Seshagiri Rao, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Deputy Commissioner
Chikkaballapur District
Chikkaballapur-562101.
2. The Assistant Commissioner
Chikkaballapur Sub Division
Chikkaballapur District
Chikkaballpura-562101.
3. Sri K.N. Shivanarayana
S/o Vaddara Narayanappa
Aged about 35 years
R/o Kammadike Village
Somenahalli Hobli
Gudibande Taluk-562101
Chikkaballapur District. ...Respondents
(By Smt. Savithramma, HCGP for R1 & R2
Sri G.V. Krishnappa, Advocate for C/R3)
2
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
endorsement/order dated 11.10.2014 passed by R-4 vide
Annexure-V and etc.
These writ petitions coming on for 'Further Hearing'
this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent No.3.
2. The petitioner is the purchaser of the lands, measuring 31 guntas, including 1 gunta kharab land and 3 acres 36 guntas, respectively comprised in Sy.No. 76/2 and Sy.No.76/3 of Kammadike Village, Gudibande Taluk.
It is contended that the said lands were granted in favour of Vaddara Narayanappa S/o Chikka Venkatappa vide proceedings dated 04.07.1961 by the then Deputy Commissioner, Kolar. In pursuance thereof, the Form No.II i.e. Saguvali Chit was issued on 11.10.1961 by the Tahasildar and therein was imposed a condition restricting alienation within 15 years of grant. On 14.8.1973, the grantee mortgaged the lands in favour of one Narayana Reddy under a registered mortgage deed.
3Subsequently, under a registered sale deed dated 16.6.1978, the grantee sold the lands to one B.D. Venkatachalapathy Setty. As such, first sale was executed prior to the Scheduled Caste and Sechedule Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 came into force for enactment. The said B.D. Venkatachalapathy Setty under the sale deed dated 31.03.1998 sold the lands in favour of petitioner. Though the sale in favour of petitioner was subsequent to the said Act coming into force, the first alienation was prior to the date of the Act coming into force and after the completion of the non-alienation period.
3. It is submitted that the son of the original grantee had made an application before the second respondent in the year 2008-09 for nullifying the sale effected in respect of the said lands and to resume possession to the legal representatives of the original grantee. The application came to be registered as case bearing No. PTCL (G) 50/2008-09 and the first respondent by order dated 22.08.2011 allowed the application.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner went up before 4 the second respondent in an appeal registered as No. RA/SCST/29/2011-12 and the first respondent by order dated 13.01.2014 was pleased to reject the appeal thereby affirming the findings in the orders passed by the second respondent. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the first transaction is prior to the said Act came into force. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Act came into force w.e.f. 01.01.1979. It is not in dispute that the first sale was effected on 16.06.1978. It is also not in dispute that non-
alienation clause imposed under the saguvali chit was for a period of 15 years only. If that be the admitted facts, then the period restricting alienation would expire on 03.07.1975. Hence, it is contended that the respondents erred in holding otherwise. It is also contended that application invoking the jurisdiction of the official respondents itself is vitiated by delay and latches and it is further contended that the official respondents are 5 exercising the authority vested in them after a lapse of nearly 30 years.
5. It is also contended that very application by the petitioner under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act is vitiated by delay and laches as the same is made after 30 years and no explanation, explaining the delay is forthcoming.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 contended that the grounds regarding delay and latches and the plea of action of official respondents beyond the reasonable period is not proof of the writ petition pleadings and hence the same cannot be raised by way of oral arguments.
7. Be that as it may. This Court has disposed of several petitions following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same being a plea that is apparent and demonstrated by the records, the said objection requires no consideration. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
68. This Court while disposing of the similar petition in W.P.No.30614/2015 vide order dated 4.6.2018 instituted by the purchaser was pleased to observe as follows:
"5. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the ruling of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and Another reported in 2018(1) Kar. L.R.5 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold as hereunder:
"8. However, the question that arises is with regard to terms of Section 5 of the Act which enables any interested person to make an application for having the transfer annulled as void under Section 4 of the Act. This Section does not prescribe any period within which such an application can be made. Neither does it prescribe the period within which suo motu action may be taken. This Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav & Ors. vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors., 2017(6) SCALE 459 and also in the case of Ningappa vs. Dy.
Commissioner & Ors. (C.A. No.3131 of 2007, decided on 14.07.2011) reiterated a settled position in law that whether Statute provided for a period of limitation, provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. It 7 is held that action whether on an application of the parties, or suo motu, must be taken within a reasonable time. That action arose under the provisions of a similar Act which provided for restoration of certain lands to farmers which were sold for arrears of rent or from which they were ejected for arrears of land from 1st January, 1939 to 31st December, 1950. This relief was granted to the farmers due to flood in the Kosi River which make agricultural operations impossible. An application for restoration was made after 24 years and was allowed. It is in that background that this Court upheld that it was unreasonable to do so. We have no hesitation in upholding that the present application for restoration of land made by respondent-Rajappa was made after an unreasonably long period and was liable to be dismissed on that ground. Accordingly, the judgments of the Karnataka High Court, namely, R.Rudrappa vs. Deputy Commissioner, 2000 (1) Karnataka Law Journal, 523, Maddurappa vs. State of Karnataka, 2006 (4) Karnataka Law Journal, 303 and G Maregouda vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga and Ors, 2000(2) Kr. L.J.Sh. N.4B holding that there is no limitation provided by Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, an application can be made at any time, are overruled. Order accordingly."8
6. By the said ruling, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law, in respect of inordinate and gross delay in invoking the statutory provisions or exercising powers vested by the statute. After examining the issue and following its earlier ruling rendered in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav & Ors. vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr.Lrs.& Ors. reported in 2017(6) SCC 459 wherein it has been reiterated that in respect of a statute that does not provide for a period of limitation to exercise the power, then the statutory provisions must be invoked within a reasonable time.
7. Learned HCGP would also place on record the Judgment rendered by this Court in WP No.6051/2008(SC/ST) C/w.WP No.1951/2016(SC/ST) disposed of by order dated 20.2.2018 whereby, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, placing reliance on the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Ram Lakshmi's case referred supra was pleased to dismiss the writ petitions preferred by the legal heirs of the original grantee.
98. In the instant case, the provisions of Section 5 are invoked after passage of more than 30 years. And by no stretch of imagination can it be considered as a reasonable period. The law in this regard has been well settled and is squarely applicable to the facts of the case.
9. The contention on behalf of the petitioner merits consideration. The counsel for respondent would submit that the decision reported in the case cited supra cannot be looked into in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Manchegowda vs. State of Karnataka reported in (1984) 3 SCC 301. That in the case of Manchegowda, the law is settled by a Division Bench of three Judges whereas, the cited ruling is rendered by a Division Bench of two Judges. This contention requires to be rejected in the light of the fact that, the Hon'ble Apex Court was not seized with the issue regarding delay in invoking the provisions of the Act while disposing of Manchegowda's case. Thus, the Apex Court has not considered the issue with regard to unreasonable delay in invoking the provisions of the statute as the said ruling 10 came to be rendered in a short span after coming into force of the enactment.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Manchegowda's case referred supra in fact visualized the present conundrum by holding that any negligence and delay on the part of the authorities, entitled to take action to avoid such transfers through appropriate legal process for resumption of such grant may be further impediments in the matter of avoiding such transfers and resumption of possession of the granted lands. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder for quick reference.
"12. In pursuance of this policy, the Legislature is undoubtedly competent to pass an enactment providing that transfers of such granted lands will be void and not merely voidable for properly safeguarding and protecting the interests of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for whose benefit only these lands had been granted. Even in the absence of any such statutory provisions, the transfer of granted lands in contravention of the terms of the grant or in breach of any law, rule or regulation covering such grant will clearly be voidable and the resumption of such 11 granted lands after avoiding the voidable transfers in accordance with law will be permitted. Avoidance of such voidable transfers and resumption of the granted lands through process of law is bound to take time. Any negligence and delay on the part of the authorities entitled to take action to avoid such transfers through appropriate legal process for resumption of such grant may be further impediments in the matter of avoiding such transfers and resumption of possession of the granted lands. Prolonged legal proceedings will undoubtedly be prejudicial to the interests of the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for whose benefit the granted lands are intended to be resumed. As transfers of granted lands in contravention of the terms of the grant or any law, regulation or rule governing such grants can be legally avoided and possession of such lands can be recovered through process of law, it must be held that the Legislature for the purpose of avoiding delay and harassment of protracted litigation and in furthering its object of speedy restoration of these granted lands to the members of the weaker communities is perfectly competent to make suitable provision for resumption of such 12 granted lands by stipulating in the enactment that transfers of such lands in contravention of the terms of the grant or any regulation, rule or law regulating such grant will be void and providing a suitable procedure consistent with the principles of natural justice for achieving this purpose without recourse to prolonged litigation in court in the larger interests of benefiting the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes."
(underlining by this Court)
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court has been prophetic in rendering the said ruling by observing that, in statues where no limitation is provided, the Authorities and the State must act consciously and if the process of invoking the provisions of statute is delayed and is initiated after a long lapse of time, the delay by itself would act as an impediment. The action on the application filed by the third respondent after more than 30 years cannot by any standards or parameters be construed as being made within a reasonable period and hence, cannot be sustained. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent is liable to be rejected.
1312. It is relevant to state the principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the exercise of power vested in an authority should be exercised in a reasonable manner and more importantly even a reasonable time more so, when time is not stipulated under the statute is not a principle of recent origins and the Hon'ble Apex Court way back in 1983 itself has enunciated the principle in the case of Mansaram vs. S.P.Pathak and others reported in 1984(1) SCC 125 where the issue involved was one of eviction of a tenant and the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where the time limit for taking action for eviction is not stipulated in the statute, the eviction after an unreasonable long lapse of time on the ground of initial occupation of the premises being unlawful is not sustainable. In para.12 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus:
"12. What is stated hereinbefore is sufficient to quash and set aside the order of the House Allotment Officer. However, there is one more aspect of the matter which we cannot overlook. The appellant entered the premises in 1954. There have been numerous 14 proceedings between him and the late Basantrai Sharma who let out the premises to the appellant but no one ever raised the question whether the appellant had entered the premises in contravention of clause 22(2). Till Basantrai Sharma died, no one raised the controversy about the entry of the appellant in the premises as being unauthorised or in contravention of clause 22. Basantrai Sharma in his life time tried to obtain possession of the premises from the appellant alleging grounds available to him under the Rent Control Order other than unauthorized entry. This would permit an inference that Basantrai Sharma accepted the appellant as his tenant and his tenancy did not suffer from any infirmity. After Basantrai Sharma died, his successor-in-interest one Smt. Usha Rani N. Sharma did not raise any controversy about the occupation of the premises by the appellant. One Mr. S.P. Pathak, a total stranger has come forward to complain about the unauthorised entry of the appellant in the premises. The unauthorised entry according to the appellant was in the year 1954. Appellant retired in 1967. Basantrai Sharma was alive in 1967. If appellant came into the premises because he was holding an office of profit, obviously Basantrai Sharma would not 15 miss the opportunity to evict the appellant because he was otherwise also trying to do the same thing. Rent was accepted without question from the appellant by Basantrai Sharma till his death and thereafter. Could he be at this distance of time, thrown out on the ground that his initial entry was unauthorized. To slightly differently formulate the proposition, could the initial unauthorized entry, if there be any, permit a House Allotment Officer, 22 years after the entry, to evict the appellant on the short ground that he entered the premises in contravention of clause 22(2) ? Undoubtedly, power is conferred on the Collector to see that the provisions of the Rent Control Order which disclosed a public policy are effectively implemented and if the Collector therefore, comes across information that there is a contravention, he is clothed with adequate power to set right the contravention by ejecting anyone who comes into the premises in contravention of the provisions. But when the power is conferred to effectuate a purpose, it has to be exercised in a reasonable manner. Exercise of power in a reasonable manner inheres the concept of its exercise within a reasonable time. Undoubtedly, no limitation is prescribed in this behalf but one 16 would stand aghast that a landlord to some extent in pari delicto could turn the tables against the person who was in possession for 22 years as a tenant. In such a situation, even though the House Allotment Officer was to reach an affirmative conclusion that the initial entry 22 years back was an unauthorised entry and that failure to vacate premises till 9 years after retirement was not proper, yet it was not obligatory upon him to pass a peremptory order of eviction in the manner in which he has done. In such a situation, it would be open to him not to evict the appellant. In this connection, we may refer to Murlidhar Agarwal v. State of U.P. wherein one Ram Agyan Singh who came into possession of premises without an order of allotment in his favour as required by sec. 7(2) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, was permitted to retain the premises by treating his occupation lawful and this court declined to interfere with that order. No doubt it must be confessed that sec. 7A conferred power on the District Magistrate to take action against unauthorised occupation in contravention of the provisions of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, but there was a proviso to the section which enabled the District Magistrate not to evict a person 17 found to be in unauthorized occupation, if the District Magistrate was satisfied that there has been undue delay or otherwise it is inexpedient to do so. There is no such proviso to clause 28 which confers power on the Collector to take necessary action for the purpose of securing compliance with the Rent Control Order. But as stated earlier, where power is conferred to effectuate a purpose, it has to be exercised in a reasonable manner and the reasonable exercise of power inheres its exercise within a reasonable time. This is too well established to need buttressing by a precedent. However, one is readily available in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha & Ors. In that case Commissioner exercised suo motu revisional jurisdiction under sec. 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code which did not prescribe any period of limitation for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The Commissioner exercised revisional jurisdiction one year after the Collector made the order which was sought to be revised. The High Court set aside the order of the Commissioner. In the appeal by State of Gujarat, this Court declined to interfere holding inter alia that the revisional power in the absence of prescribed period of limitation must be exercised within a reasonable time and period of 18 one year was held to be too late. This aspect must be present to the mind of House Allotment Officer before just rushing in on an unproved technical contravention brought to his notice contrived by the successor-
in-interest of the deceased
landlord, and evicting the
appellant 22 years after his entry and 9 years after his retirement on the short ground that his entry in the year 1954 was in contravention of clause 22(2)."
13. The above decision has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its subsequent judgment in the case of Santhoshkumar Shivgonda Patil & others vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and others reported in (2009) 9 SCC 352 wherein at para.10 referring to the ruling in the case of State of Punjab vs. Bhatinda District Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd., held that where the statute does not prescribe the time limit, same has to be exercised within a reasonable time be it suo motu or otherwise. It was pleased to hold that the reasonable period under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code could be three years subject to exceptional circumstances and categorically held that the exercise of revisional power after lapse 19 of 17 years can by no stretch of imagination be construed as being within a reasonable time. The observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in para.10,11 and 12 is reproduced below.
'10. Recently, in the case of State of Punjab and Others v.
Bhatinda District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd. while dealing with the power of revision under Section 21 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, it has been held: (SCC p.367, paras 17-19) "17. A bare reading of Section 21 of the Act would reveal that although no period of limitation has been prescribed therefore, the same would not mean that the suo motu power can be exercised at any time.
18. It is trite that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors.
19. Revisional jurisdiction, in our opinion, should ordinarily be exercised within a period of three years having regard to the purport in terms of the said Act. In any event, the same should not exceed the period of five years. The view of the High Court, thus, cannot be said to be unreasonable. Reasonable period, keeping in view the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from 20 the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years."
11. It seems to be fairly settled that if a statute does not prescribed the time-limit for exercise of revisional power, it does not mean that such power can be exercises at any time; rather it should be exercised within a reasonable time. It is so because the law does not expect a settled thing to be unsettled after a long lapse of time. Where the legislature does not provide for any length of time within which the power of revision is to be exercised by the authority, suo motu or otherwise, it is playing that exercise of such power within reasonable time is inherent therein.
12. Ordinarily, the reasonable period within which the power of revision may be exercised would be 3 years under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code subject, of course, to the exceptional circumstances in a given case, but surely exercise of revisional power after a lapse of 17 years is not a reasonable time. Invocation of revisional power by the Sub-
Divisional Officer under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is plainly an abuse of process in the facts and circumstance of the case assuming that the order of the Tahsildar passed on 30.03.1976 is flawd and legally not correct."
219. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed.
Order of Annexures -'G' and 'J' are quashed.
Rule is made absolute.
In view of the above, the prayer sought in I.A.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration. Hence, the I.A.No.1/2018 stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ssd