Karnataka High Court
Sri. D. M. Manjunath vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 July, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:25144
WP No. 16766 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 16766 OF 2022 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI. D. M. MANJUNATH
S/O. LATE MAHADEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST,
R/AT MARANAGERE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 201.
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFITS NOT CLAIMED)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
signed by
CHAITHRA A REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING,
Location:
HIGH DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
COURT OF BENGALURU-560 001.
KARNATAKA
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR DISTRICT,
TUMKUR-577 202.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR SUB-DIVISION,
TUMKUR-577 202.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:25144
WP No. 16766 of 2022
4. KRISHNAPPA
MAJOR IN AGE,
S/O LATE PAPAIAH
5. GOPAL
MAJOR IN AGE,
S/O LATE PAPAIAH,
THE RESPONDENT 4 AND 5 ARE
RESIDENTS OF MARANAGERE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
TIPUTUR TALUK-577 201,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VENAKATA SATHYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI.N.G.SREEDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DTD 10.08.2022 PASSED BY THE R2 IN CASE NO.PTCL 15/2019
VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION CONFIRMING THE
ORDER DD 26.08.2019 PASSED BY THE R3 IN CASE NO.PTCL
SR 6/2016-17 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT
PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2 IN CASE NO.PTCL 16/2019
VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:25144
WP No. 16766 of 2022
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the purchaser assailing the concurrent orders passed by the authorities in ordering for restoration of the land in question.
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 the case of 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 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC -4- NC: 2023:KHC:25144 WP No. 16766 of 2022 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 3 (2018) 12 SCC 527 4 (2020) 14 SCC 236 -5- NC: 2023:KHC:25144 WP No. 16766 of 2022 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. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act would contend that the purchasers cannot take the benefit of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and another and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench on a review petition in -6- NC: 2023:KHC:25144 WP No. 16766 of 2022 RP.No.393/2022. Referring to the principles laid down therein, he would submit that the same is squarely applicable to the present case on hand and therefore, the order of restoration passed by the authorities would not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the order rendered in RP.393/2022. That was a case where some civil suits were pending and the Division Bench while excluding the time spent in litigating the civil proceedings was of the view that there is no inordinate delay. At para 24 of the order, the Division Bench held that the claim of the purchaser that there was delay of 21 years is found to be misconceived and therefore, the review petition was allowed and the order under review was recalled.
6. I have examined the facts and circumstances. I am of the view that the observations made by the Division Bench on the review petition are distinguishable. The facts in the said case and the present case on hand are totally different. Be that as it may. Since the law on -7- NC: 2023:KHC:25144 WP No. 16766 of 2022 the point of doctrine of reasonableness is dealt by the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court in catena of judgments, I am of the view that it would not be necessary to take cognizance of the observations made by the Division Bench in the above said judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents. The ratio laid down in the latest judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satyan .vs. Deputy Commissioner and others5 would clinch the entire controversy. I am not inclined to accede to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the grantee that in respect of the alienations made post amendment to the PTCL Act, the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and another and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha are not applicable.
7. Paragraphs 33 and 34 in Satyan case reads as under:
"33. The aforesaid aspect is really not in doubt, in view of the subsequent judicial pronouncements, more 5 (2020) 14 SCC 210 -8- NC: 2023:KHC:25144 WP No. 16766 of 2022 specifically in Dharma Naika v. Rama Naika. The context of the observations made in Manchegowda v.
State of Karnataka has been clearly enunciated. It is noted that the agreements for sale were executed before the commencement of the Act. The sale deed was executed afterwards. In that context it was observed that it could be safely concluded that provisions of Section 4(1) declared any transfer of land made either before or after the commencement of the said Act to be null and void if it contravened the conditions specified therein. Section 4(2) was held to make it abundantly clear that if the sale deed was executed and registered after the commencement of the said Act, and was without prior permission of the State Government, such transfer would be invalid and null and void. The scheme of the said Act was also discussed in detail with the objective with which it was enacted. Before parting with the judgment, this Court in Dharma Naika case observed in para 27 that Manchegowda v. State of Karnataka has to be read in the context of the limited scope, as enunciated in para 7 of that judgment. Nothing more is really left to be said after this judgment, though there are certain other judicial pronouncements referred to aforesaid, cited by the learned counsel for the State. Suffice it to say that a delay of eight (8) years by itself cannot come in the way of the competent authority taking the action, as limitation principles would not apply, as observed in Amrendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati. The cases referred to by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant involved huge gaps of around twenty (20) to thirty (30) years, which is not so in the present case.
34. The period of eight (8) years cannot be said to be such, as to amount to such delay and laches as would make the action void, considering that it is in respect of a beneficial legislation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community." -9-
NC: 2023:KHC:25144 WP No. 16766 of 2022
8. On meticulous examination of the observations and findings recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited judgments, I am more than satisfied that the Apex Court has dealt with the alienations post amendment to the PTCL Act. The Apex Court was of the view that the delay involved in the said case was only eight years and therefore, held that it would come in the way of the competent authority in taking appropriate action and ordering for restoration as held in the case of Amrendra Pratap Singh .vs. Tej Bahadur Prajapati6
9. In the present case on hand, there is delay of 27 years. Diligence is found to be woefully lacking. The grantee who sold the land in question in contravention of the provisions of the PTCL Act has not questioned the alienations by invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act during his life time. This Court has been examining the restoration proceedings initiated by the legal heirs of the original grantee. If the original grantee during his life time 6 (2004) 10 SCC 65
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25144 WP No. 16766 of 2022 has not chosen to challenge the sale deeds on the ground that alienations are in contravention of the PTCL Act, I am unable to understand as to how the legal heirs of original grantee who do not have pre-existing right can maintain restoration proceedings, more particularly, when there is delay of more than 27 years. Therefore, I am more than satisfied that the law laid down by the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and another and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha and the latest judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Satyan are squarely applicable to the present case on hand. Dehors that, if the alienations are found to be after the commencement of the PTCL Act, the doctrine of reasonable period is also applicable and needs and deserves to be applied bearing in mind the right of the purchaser who has acquired a defective title for valuable sale consideration. After passage of time, the rights of the purchaser have stood crystallized and therefore, legal heirs of the grantee cannot be permitted to take away
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25144 WP No. 16766 of 2022 those settled rights on account of laxness on the part of legal heirs of original grantee.
10. In that view of the matter, the concurrent orders passed by the authority ignoring the inordinate delay of 27 years is not sustainable. The impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
11. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii)The order dated 26.08.2019 passed by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-B and the order dated 20.8.2022 passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-D are hereby set aside.
Sd/-
JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17