Karnataka High Court
Sri. Hanumanthaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 6 June, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:19143
WP No. 11084 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 11084 OF 2023 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. HANUMANTHAIAH,
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST.
2. SRI. MUNIYAPPA,
S/O LATE POOJIGA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
DAVAGERE VILLAGE AND COLONY,
KENGERI HOBLI,
Digitally signed by KUMBALAGODU POST,
LAKSHMINARAYAN
N BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka BANGALORE - 560 060.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JAGADEESHACHARI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:19143
WP No. 11084 of 2023
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE THASILDAR,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
4. SMT. MEHABOOBI,
W/O MOHAMMED MASTAN SAHIB,
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS,
NO.5, DURGAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
KALASIPALYAM,
BANGALORE - 560 002.
5. SRI. NARAYANAPPA,
S/O LATE KARIHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
6. SRI. HANUMANARAYANAPPA,
S/O LATE KARIOHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
BOTH R/AT DEVAGERE VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI,
KUMBALAGODU SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 060.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUBRAMAYA R., ALONG WITH
SRI. J. C. KUMAR., ADVOCATES FOR C/R6;
SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYANA., HCGP FOR R1 TO 3)
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:19143
WP No. 11084 of 2023
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS FROM THE R3 IN NO.SC-ST (APPEAL) 152/12/13
C/W SC-ST (APPEAL) 32/2013-14 DATED 17.3.2022 AS PER
ANNEXURE-F AND ORDER DATED 17.5.2023 AS PER
ANNEXURE-J M.R.NO.T24/2022-23 AND ANNEXURE-K IN
M.R.NO.25/2022-23 PASSED BY THE R2 AND QUASH THE SAME
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the legal heir of the original grantee namely Gendappa @ Poojappa as well as legal heir of one Narayanappa questioning the order of respondent No.3/Deputy commissioner who has set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner ordering restoration of petition lands in favour of the petitioners herein.
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 -4- NC: 2023:KHC:19143 WP No. 11084 of 2023 .vs. State of Karnataka and another 1 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 a 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC 3 (2018) 12 SCC 527 4 (2020) 14 SCC 236 -5- NC: 2023:KHC:19143 WP No. 11084 of 2023 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 -6- NC: 2023:KHC:19143 WP No. 11084 of 2023 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, there was a delay of 38 years in the first round of litigation and 43 years in the second round of litigation 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 after long lapse of time, the delay by itself would act as an impediment. Thus, without exception and coming across various rules of law, the -7- NC: 2023:KHC:19143 WP No. 11084 of 2023 Apex Court has categorically stated the law in respect of exercise of power/jurisdiction under statute where no limitation is stipulated. The law on the point of delay and laches to invoke the provisions of PTCL Act is well settled by catena of judgments.
5. The subject matter of the petition land was originally bearing Sy. No. 68 and is now renumbered as Sy.nos.94, 95 and 96, totally measuring 6 acres. The competent authorities were pleased to grant the land bearing Sy.No.68 to three persons to an extent of 2 acres each. Gendapa @ Poojappa, who is the ancestor of petitioner No. 2, was granted 2 acres, while Narayanappa @ Narayani, who is the ancestor of petitioner No.1, was also granted 2 acres. Third beneficiary was one Buddaiah, who was also granted 2 acres, which is not the subject matter of the present writ petition.
6. Gendappa @ Poojappa, Narayanappa @ Narayani, as well as Buddaiah, alienated the petition land in favour of one Mehaboobi w/o Mohammed Masthan -8- NC: 2023:KHC:19143 WP No. 11084 of 2023 under registered sale deed dated 16.06.1966. After the Land Reforms Act came into force, one Lakkamma, asserting tenancy filed Form No.7 against Mehaboobi, who is the first purchaser of granted land. The land tribunal, after due enquiry proceeded to confer occupancy rights in favour of Lakkamma, who is the ancestor of respondents No.5 and 6 herein. Pursuant to the grant of occupancy rights, the jurisdictional Tahasildar, having determined compensation, proceeded to issue Form No.10 in favour of Lakkamma.
7. Petitioner No.2 filed the petition against respondent No.6, who is the son of Lakkamma who was conferred with occupancy rights and sought restoration on the ground that the alienations by the original grantee in 1966 are in contravention of the provisions of the PTCL Act. Similarly, petitioner No.1, who is the legal heir of the original grantee, Narayanappa @ Narayani, also filed the petition seeking restoration against respondent No.6. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the petition filed by -9- NC: 2023:KHC:19143 WP No. 11084 of 2023 petitioner No.2 vide order dated 03.02.2006. Petitioner No.2 preferred an appeal before respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner in appeal No.K.SC.ST(A) 12/2006-07. Respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner, having taken cognizance of the fact that the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights to Lakkamma, declined to entertain the appeal, and consequently, the appeal was dismissed by recording a finding that if occupancy rights were conferred under the Land Reforms Act, the provisions of the PTCL Act have no application.
8. Similarly, the petition filed by the legal heir of original grantee Narayanappa @ Narayani, that is, petitioner No.1 herein, was also rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. The father of petitioner No.1 preferred an appeal in appeal No.K.SC.ST(A) 13/2006-07. Respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner taking cognizance of the fact that Lakkamma was conferred occupancy rights, declined to entertain the appeal and this appeal was also dismissed. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:19143 WP No. 11084 of 2023 petitioners No.1 and 2 seeking restoration of lands held by original grantees Poojappa @ Gendappa and Narayanapp @ Narayani attained finality as the present petitioners herein have not chosen to challenge the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner in an earlier round of litigation.
9. The buck does not stop here. The petitioners herein, suppressing the earlier orders passed on the petition filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, consciously and deliberately initiated proceedings against Mehaboobi, who had purchased these properties from the petitioner's ancestors under a registered sale deed dated 16.06.1966. The petitioners herein consciously have not arrayed the present respondents No.5 and 6 and their mother Lakkamma in the second round of litigation. This petition is filed against Mehaboobi, who contested and lost the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. The Assistant Commissioner ordered restoration as petitioners succeeded in suppressing the earlier orders which they
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:19143 WP No. 11084 of 2023 had suffered at the hands of Assistant Commissioner. The present respondents No.5 and 6 having gained knowledge about the orders secured by the petitioners herein, preferred two independent appeals before respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner. Appeal No.SC/ST(Appeal) 152/2012-13 was filed against petitioner No.2 and the subject matter was 2 acres of land which was granted to his father Gendappa @ Poojappa. Appeal No. No.SC/ST(Appeal) 32/2012-13 was filed by respondents No.5 and 6 against petitioner No.1 in respect of 2 acres, which was granted to original grantee Narayanappa @ Narayani. Respondents No.5 and 6 having preferred two different appeals, placed on record the earlier proceedings wherein the Assistant Commissioner declined to entertain the petition filed by petitioners herein seeking restoration of petition lands. Respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner having taken cognizance of earlier orders, has come to the conclusion that petitioners have initiated a second round of litigation by suppressing material facts. Respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner placing reliance on principles
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:19143 WP No. 11084 of 2023 laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi, held that the Assistant Commissioner erred in ordering for restoration of petition lands. Consequently, respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner allowed both the appeals and set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner ordering restoration of petition lands in favour of the legal heirs of both the grantees, that is, Gendappa @ Poojappa and Narayanappa @ Narayani. The common orders passed by respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner are under challenge by the petitioners, who are none other than the legal heirs of original grantees.
10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 6 and learned High Court Government Pleader.
11. The present case on hand depicts a sorry state of affairs. The petitioners, having suffered an order wherein their petition seeking restoration of land was
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:19143 WP No. 11084 of 2023 rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, which is evident from the orders placed on record by respondents No.5 and 6 along with statements of objections vide Annexures-R4 and 6, have ventured into re-litigating on the same cause of action by deliberately suppressing the earlier orders. This Court would also find that a conscious effort was made by the petitioners herein in initiating restoration proceedings against the first purchaser, Mehaboobi, while they already suffered an order while seeking restoration of land against respondent No.6, who is the legal heir of Lakkamma, who was conferred with occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal. In the captioned writ petition, these significant details, which are relevant and have a direct bearing, are consciously suppressed by the petitioners before this court. There is absolutely no whisper in regard to restoration proceedings initiated by petitioners herein against respondent No.6 in the earlier round of litigation. If petitioners have suffered an order as indicated in Annexures-R4 and 6 and confirmed by respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner as indicated in Annexures-R5
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:19143 WP No. 11084 of 2023 and 7, the respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner was justified in allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by Assistant Commissioner, who is not made a party to the present captioned writ petition. The restoration order passed by Assistant Commissioner is liable to be quashed on two counts.
12. Firstly, the claim of petitioners is given quietus pursuant to their appeals being dismissed by respondent No.3 as per Annexures-R5 and 7, which are orders passed by respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner as an appellate authority. If the petitions filed by petitioners No.1 and 2 are rejected on merits, they could not have maintained the second petition by suppressing the earlier proceedings. Therefore, respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner was justified in allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order passed by Assistant Commissioner in both the petitions filed by petitioners No.1 and 2.
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:19143 WP No. 11084 of 2023
13. The second round of restoration proceedings initiated by petitioners, even otherwise, is not maintainable in the light of principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the first petitions filed by petitioners No.1 and, 2 there is delay of 38 years, while the petition filed in the second round is after a lapse of 43 years. In the light of principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi, even otherwise, the petition ought to have been out rightly rejected by the authority only on the ground of gross delay.
14. Now the next question that needs to be examined by this Court is whether this is a fit case to impose exemplary costs. The petitioners are found to be relentlessly asserting their claim and have succeeded in re-litigating on the same cause of action which was given a quietus by respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner in an earlier round of litigation while dismissing the appeals filed in K.SC.ST(A)12/2006-07 and K.SC.ST(A)13/2006-07.
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:19143 WP No. 11084 of 2023 Though the restoration petition was rejected and confirmed by respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner way back in 2009, the petitioners have kept this litigation alive and respondents No.5 and 6, who had succeeded in an earlier round of litigation, are compelled to face a second round of litigation. Being prosecuted on frivolous grounds can be painful and the parties facing frivolous litigation have to engage a lawyer and go through a long ordeal of litigation initiated by unscrupulous clients. Though the impugned order passed by respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-F to the writ petition clearly indicates that petitioners suffered an order in an earlier round of litigation, the petitioners have shown audacity in suppressing the orders they suffered in the earlier round of litigation. This conduct also indicates their arrogance and strong intent to exploit the provisions of PTCL Act, which is meant to protect the genuine depressed class against exploitation. The petitioners do not deserve any protection under the provisions of PTCL Act which are indicated in the preceding paragraphs.
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:19143 WP No. 11084 of 2023
15. The orders passed by respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The grounds urged in the writ petition will not in any way displace the conclusions and findings recorded by respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner while allowing the appeal and reversing the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner in restoring the petition lands to the legal heirs of the original grantee, that is, petitioners herein. This matter was exhaustively argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Precious time of this Court was spent on this frivolous litigation. Therefore, I am of the view that this is a fit case where the petition is liable to be dismissed by imposing an exemplary cost.
16. In view of discussion made supra, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed by imposing a cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC:19143 WP No. 11084 of 2023
(ii) The petitioners herein are directed to deposit the cost to the Karnataka Advocates Clerks Benevolent Trust within a period of four weeks and report compliance to the registry.
Sd/-
JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT:STK