Karnataka High Court
Muniraju vs Deputy Commissioner on 25 July, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:25752
WP No. 21742 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.21742 OF 2021 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE ERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
DASARAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBALI
DAVANAHALLI TALUK-562126
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BHAT SHANKAR SHIVARAM, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
Digitally
signed by OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHAITHRA A VEERASANDRA VILLAGE
Location: 'DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVAN'
HIGH VEERASANDRA VILLAGE
COURT OF KUNDANA HOBLI
KARNATAKA DAVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562126
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
3. SRI REDDAPPA REDDY
S/O MUNIRATHNAM REDDY
NO. 401, SAI KRUPA HEERA
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:25752
WP No. 21742 of 2021
1ST MAIN ROAD,
BHUVANESHWARINAGARA
BENGALURU-560093
4. SRI M CHANDRANNA
S/O MALLAPPA
SHIRA TOWN
SHIRA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
5. SRI RANGANATHA
S/O MALLAPPA
SHIRA TOWN,
SHIRA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-562326
6. SRI M KEMPAIAH
S/O DAFEDAR MUNISHAMPPA
DASARAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGLAURU RURUL DISTRICT-562126
7. SMT MUNITHAYAMMA
W/O M KEMPAIAH
DASARAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562126
8. SRI K NARAYANASWAMY
S/O M KEMPAIAH
DASARAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562126
9. SRI PILLAMUNISHAMAPPA
S/O M KEMPAIAH
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:25752
WP No. 21742 of 2021
DASARAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110
10. SRI D K MANJUNATH
S/O M KEMAPAIAH
DASARAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110
11. SRI V.M VENKATASUBBAIAH
@ V.M VENKATASUBBARAJU
S/O RAMAIAH, HMT LAYOUT
RT NAGARA
BENGALULRU-560032
12. SRI SRINIVASA SIMHADRI
S/O SURYA RAO SIMHADRI
NO. 39, 3RD CROSS
PRASHANTHA NAGARA
DEVANAHALLI TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R.1 AND R.2;
SRI.VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 29.11.2019 ON THE FILE OF DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT R-1 VIDE
ANNX-A AND ETC.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:25752
WP No. 21742 of 2021
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Office objections are over-ruled.
2. The captioned writ petition is filed by the son of the original grantee assailing the order of respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, who has allowed the appeal filed by the purchaser and the order of resumption passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner is set-aside.
3. 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 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC -5- NC: 2023:KHC:25752 WP No. 21742 of 2021 by the Division Bench in W.A.No.16/2021 disposed of on 05.04.2021.
4. 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 3 (2018) 12 SCC 527 4 (2020) 14 SCC 236 -6- NC: 2023:KHC:25752 WP No. 21742 of 2021 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. -7-
NC: 2023:KHC:25752 WP No. 21742 of 2021
5. In the instant case, the application seeking resumption is liable to be rejected on three counts. Firstly, the provisions of PTCL Act are not applicable to the present case on hand. The petitioner himself has placed on record the Grant Certificate issued by the Authority and the same is issued under Form No.1 The controversy relating to issuance of Grant Certificate under Form No.1 is given quietus by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.K.Muniraju vs State of Karnataka5. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the said controversy and upholding the judgment of the High Court, held that, merely because a document is styled as a certificate of grant, that in itself will not lead to an inference that the grant was intended for a depressed class. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.K.Muniraju held as under:
"The document in question has been styled as "certificate of grant". In order to know the real nature of the document, one has to look into the recitals of the document and not the title of the document. The intention is to be gathered from 5 (2008) 4 SCC 451 -8- NC: 2023:KHC:25752 WP No. 21742 of 2021 recitals in the deed, conduct of the parties and evidence on record. It is settled law that question of construction of a document is to be decided by finding out intention of the executant, firstly, from a comprehensive reading of the terms of the document itself, and then, by looking into, to the extent permissible, the prevailing circumstances which persuaded the author of the document to execute it.
With a view to ascertain the nature of a transaction, the document has to be read as a whole. A sentence or term used may not be determinative of real nature of transaction."
6. In the light of findings recorded by Hon'ble Apex Court cited supra, merely because the document is styled as a certificate of grant, it cannot be presumed that the land was granted in the category of depressed class.
7. Therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.K.Muniraju, the grantee having participated in the public auction has purchased the land in question by depositing the entire auction price and therefore, it is not a granted land, but it is outright sale and therefore, it has to be treated as a title -9- NC: 2023:KHC:25752 WP No. 21742 of 2021 document in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra. The provisions of the PTCL Act are not applicable and therefore, respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain an application seeking resumption. Therefore, he ought not to have exercised jurisdiction by invoking the provisions of the 'PTCL Act' to the present case on hand.
8. The second ground on which the application is liable to be rejected on account of inordinate delay of 49 years. In the present case on hand, the diligence is woefully lacking. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra, the resumption application is liable to be rejected. The respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner has not examined the delay and laches in moving the application. The judgments cited supra clearly indicate 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
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25752 WP No. 21742 of 2021 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 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.
9. The third ground on which resumption application cannot be entertained having regard to the fact that the land in question has changed several hands. The original grantee sold the petition land in favour of respondent No.4 under registered sale deed dated 21.05.1962. The second sale is dated 18.05.1963. The third sale is dated 16.01.2006. The fourth sale is dated 28.05.2008. The 4th purchaser - Srinivas Simhadri sold the petition land in
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25752 WP No. 21742 of 2021 favour of respondent No.3 - Reddappa Reddy under registered sale deed dated 01.09.2014. Therefore, respondent No.3 is the fifth purchaser. Therefore, the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Chhedi Lal Yadav vs. Hari Kishore Yadav6 [(2018) 12 SCC 527] is also squarely applicable to the present case on hand as there are series of transactions. The Apex Court was of the view that if there is inordinate, unexplained and unjustified delay on the part of the applicant in seeking restoration of the land, such inaction would create a right in favour of other party. Therefore, the Apex Court was of the view that time must be reckoned reasonably, not only in order to preserve the rights and advantages which party possesses but equally to protect each party from losses he ought not to suffer. The registered sale deeds are public documents and after verifying the public documents, if citizens enter into further transaction believing such public documents to be genuine, the subsequent alienations cannot be set at naught by showing leniency to aggrieved 6 (2018) 12 SCC 527
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25752 WP No. 21742 of 2021 party who has slept over his rights, if rights are crystallized on account of inaction on the part of the original grantee. The said application has to be rejected on this count also.
10. The property has changed several hands as indicated in the preceding paragraph. Therefore, the property has changed several hands under registered documents. The legal heirs of original grantee after lapse of 49 years are not entitled to seek restoration as third party rights are created and on account of passage of time, the rights of subsequent purchasers has stood crystallized and therefore, rights which had accrued and vested with the subsequent purchasers cannot be set at naught by exercising the power under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. These significant details are not at all taken into consideration by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner. The order passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner is strictly inconsonance with the law
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25752 WP No. 21742 of 2021 laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, I do not find any infirmities in the order under challenge.
11. 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.
(ii) Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2