Karnataka High Court
Smt Jayamma W/O Siddegowda vs The Assistant Commissioner on 13 January, 2010
Bench: Manjula Chellur, A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13*" DAY OF JANUARY, 2010
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRSJUSTICE MANJULA cHE'E%;LJ'R'EVV'.',1";-I T.
&
THE HON'Bi_E MR. JUSTICE A.N.VEN,UGOP_A'LA''£§C)W'$A_ 1' 1%
WRIT APPEAL NO.2860/2,009: ('SC/'ST'>{_' " '
BETWEEN :
Smtjayamma,
W/0. Siddegowda,
Aged about 65 years, . _ --_
R/at Goruvanahafli viElage,
Maddur Taluk, V
Mandya District: 3
APPELLANT
(By -- '
AND :
1. The' 'AssistantCbrhmissioner,
3'-.3:La'ndyEa S_ub»Divi3-é-en',
«I§/_'!and"ya f:)i"::t_rict.
._ "'T5heEE 95:';a,§'_ty':V.E'C{5mmi ssioner,
Ma'ndy_af 'am;-act.
Th'e~."FvE;a';TaVssiIdar,
E .. Maddifif TaEuk,
VVM'a{1cEya District.
.___":"4.E§Siddaéah, S/o. Mariyappa,
VS/0. Mariyappa,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at. Kudhurugundi Colony,
Kasaba Hobli, Maddur Taluk,
Mandya District.
RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. A.R.Sharadamba, AGA for R1 to R3) * V This Writ appeal filed under Section Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside.__thejj0r'der_j passed in the Writ Petition No,,16683/'2'O0}3, "dated 08/07/2009.
This appeal coming on for pre*l.i__rn'inary day, VENUGOPALA GOWDA, J,w'cl'eE_ivered..thefoi!voizi{in.g,V:VVV iuoomefirg-t A' V Appellant had fEleVc1"«-\i\V::,'.1'i_tA p_eti;jtion=qiue'sit_i0ning an order dated 26nO5.2009.(Annexure ea a) passed by the 2""
respondent '~i.,':iiDep:i:i:t\,i "Comn1i's's'i'oner, whereunder, the appeal filed'by'the'4"i5Vre.sporident herein, against an order passed by the '1'",VVresp,ond'ent herein, was allowed. The "Vwrit..':p3éti,t.i§>i:..,_haying»-been rejected, this appeai has been ":i55i;é»ro1'Vacres of land in Survey No.24S of '.,lf'<uduregiir§_diV Viliage in Maddur Taiuk of iviandya District A Xwagslllgranted to the father of 4"' respondent, who was a 'rrriegmber of Scheduie Caste community. Pursuant to the \ ./'' pr grant, a saguvaii chit was issued, which has a condition of non--aiienation for a peréod of 10 years with effect'~.frontvv 21.05.1955. Appellant's husband, Siddegowda-piu'rc:hVa's--edf"v-.«T~ the said iand under two sale deedsdartped and 11.09.1967. 4" respondent fired aV'upet§_tion respondent to deciare the saieideeds as nuii ia,_nAd{_void,.--w1in exercise of the jurisdiction under___fi:»,e iiavrnatia'-kaSchieduied Caste and Schedules '-(Pr%o'hib"i--t{on"iof Transfer of Certain Lands) Act.,r.1978:.('fovr. short"»t'h'e."Act"'§v§'
3. The i'.-raving conducted an enquiry,V.rvp'y"aniiiyordié-r"'dated 3o';'o'1'.'i99o (Annexure - F) rejected the' respondent. Chaiienging the said order," Areispondent filed before the 2""
an appea--i~~~--u'nder Section 5-A of the Act. Since was'«v.de!:,a*y:infiiing the appeai, an appiication seeking condo'natéo.n"oflf_ delay was aiso fiied. The 2"" respondent V%ir~-,__"having noté;fied the appeiiant, upon consideration of the ai_opAV|vica'tion for condonation of deiay and the appeai, having ii-____"'t'ou'nd rrzerét in the appeal, passed an order dated it /' 26,€)S.2009 (Annexure -- G), where under the said sale deeds in favour of the appellant's husband were d_eci_:a~r4ed.v as null and void and the Assistant Commissi=oner".'ti{iiagr.:._._". directed to resume the land and restore to the legal heirs of the original grantee iv'.-e., 4"?_lres'po'riVd"e.nt?1.r_' herein, which order was queiitioned by the a'p'pe'l'Ea.nt,.»3ine the writ petition.
4. Learned Single the matter, has taken to the reasons, arrived at by the AppellatieflAUt'lEl:(;ftltly:i:'Eili :th..e*'ord'eVr""irnpugned in the writ petition filing the appeal has been condoned bv"*«.the gAppAe--l_lsa't~e': Authority in exercise of the "'~di_scret'i"%on>_,.c:which uwas-~--not shown to be malafide or illegal, ;int.erfere with the matter and has rejected the wr'i't petit'iscin..;:;
.. "Sri R.S.Ravi, learned advocate appearing for t_he_"ap--p'«ellant raised two contentions. Firstly, the saguvali dated 25.05.1955 contains the non--alienation \ ,/,'!, condition of 10 years and the saie deeds being after the expiry of the nomafienation period i.e., 08.06.1966 and 11.09.1967, there is no contravention of the terms of-'--t_he grant and hence the 2"" respondent ~«~ Appeflate has committed error and iiiegality in deciaririfijthe:'sa"ie:.V_'"'_4'r M deeds to be nuif and void and in aiiow'i'n'g«the_appeai._as'pergw the order dated 26.05.2009 (A4nnexdii«re¥--r;j; seeendix/,"
2"" respondent -- Appeiiate '-i._}¥uthorhiVty'.. . 'hash: Verred in condoning the inordinatedeiay.r'0'f=a:bo1J"t_.11 t/e'arsi-'syn filing the appeal and the iaearneid-.f5'S:'indie%. V"_».J1}d.ge has not considered the _rnatter p:ers'_pecti\;ée:.V We"6Cha_ye.VMperUsved_ the record and carefuiiy considered the sob_nfii--sAsion-sh.rriade by the teamed advocate for the. 3apDueH.an't.7' 'The points that arise for our ccnsvitierationt' are:
the 2"" respondent is justifled in _ .'de_c£iaring the sale deeds dated 08.08.1966 and 11.09.1967 executed in favour of the appellants husband, as null and void? % ,/.', (3
2. Whether the 2"" respondent - Appe/{ate Authority is justified' in condoning the delay while a//owing the appeal? A A'
7. Indisputediy, the iand was granted§V_:«..tjh'»d.'eL*r__fa'.._._"', darkhast to the father of the 4"' res;;2ohdent'.""'Pt{rjs,Liaht'to...' " it the grant, saguvaii chit was condition of non-aiienation 0:"V_ years 21.05.1955. The granted two separate sale deeds 11.09.1967.
The 15' respondent wasavp:§'roa--Ai§:»eCi'.A..Vi?'Y:;:".t,he heir of the grantee, to nuli and void, in view oft'-the provisions of the Act to the granted land... "w.hie'n tbeioejgtv to the members of Scheduied Castesrtvaawd Sc"h.e.d_Lii_erJ Tribes communities. The 15' resp--o_Vnde_nt%pa's*sed an order rejecting the ciaim. An appeal o.r1d:e'r.tSec't'§.bL:n of the Act was flied, with an appiication
-V for co'hdoVr}ati'on of delay. Notice of the appeal was issued ':'f.0n the present appeilaht. Objections were fiied to the ..t.'\.a:b.p/Itication seeking condonation of Kay. After hearing 2:
the Eearned counsel on both sides, the Appeiiate Authority has found the appeal to be meritorious and as a result, condoning the delay, has decided the appeai On:i'l't'S.'_i}%l.'§l'iil3EL Whether or not, there is sufficient cause for of7 delay is a question of fact, dependentlu4pon*_th1e'facts»..,a'nVd_l:' circumstances of the particular _case.A'--AP§'efusaE.tocondone the deiay, if any, if were to resluiltlhlliin pgralx"/o_ nfiisicarriaae of justice, that itself would deiay.
Appeliate Authority has Had not the delay been" co£n:,done._d, been a case of grave rniscérria-§jeV.'o"i.j4u's.t~ii.ce';--...l- 'ije'nce, the discretion exercised to.con.::o.n:e.thelddelay.' cannot be fauited. It is well settlledyéthatp,_e>:pression "sufficient cause" is V adequateiy e!astic,_V_to'enVable the court to apply the iaw in a nna.nner which subserves the ends of justice ~ that'-l'___b.ei"nrj«..:th.e'-"life--purpose for the existence of the _institt:..tioFi"e.f:"" Courts. This Court has adopted liberal :évDfQ.ach'i-'ah matters which are filed after certain lapse of ~':belatedly, where there is merit. When substantial IR";-ustice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantiai justice, have always been preferred. Appeiiant has not shown any _,cuip.ab.I,e negfigence or malafide act on the part respondent in filing the appeal beiiatediy. i-resptownderityé has not gained in any manner-._ by"ifi'|in'g._"th'e belatedly. There is absolutely no material ,shioyyii.nig..beriefit on the part of the 4%." respo_ri'cie:nt.._»_vin the Appeliate Authority, bio':-atediy, view of the matter, the Appeiiate merit in the appeat, is and deciding the matter vonviririeirittiix jurisdiction by the court/competent.,a.oVt'hor'i«ty'-in the matter of condonation of delay been properly exercised in a»rna'tter inv'o!.y_i'nV'g merit, has not been rightly interfered Zthejvhjieavrned Singie Judge before whom the ground Atv.*.i¢th'__regard.,V_tox.t'Vtvtie deiay in fiiing the appeai before the 2"'i resp'onde°n't-was urged.
A From the record it is clear that, the grant was t made in favour of the father of 4"" respondent, who was a E _,g 9 member of the Scheduled Ca-ste. The grant was free of consideration. Rule 43(8) of the Land Grant Rules stipulate that the grant made free of consideration was not al§el',1'¥c."i"'{3_l.€ for a period of 20 years from the date of grant---i;e:l__;__t"ij'n:"
respect of the grants made between 05.07.1955" The grant in favour of1;.thell_:élt"; been made on 25.05.1955 angd_4hence_lthe noni-aivE'enati'3o.ra'l period in terms of the Rules"i's..:2O yea"I<s_.'V"t}i\lv\la:ys the law/rules prevail and the §A§¢ecs}t:§;_Ve,g'a'c.ts, whenlfthere is a conflict. The sale deeds'A*t'he'.'.~period of 20 Years, were i!"I4"\'if'5.c<.'-'.'iat!:o'--.n ::o*f7 Efianld'-.V"G.ra.nt Rules. As a consequence, AtVhe'.;i\pdpwelE'a.te-Authloréty having examined the appeal andv~flndin'g"'tha.t'th':e-fifvo saie deeds executed by the V original' "grantee"'lnfavotlr of the husband of the appellant f'1L,lslll:<3't§1Cl«..'v\/Old, has declared the same as null and Av"o.i_dr.-"___ assigned by the 2"" respondent to set- _aside'--the__"order passed by the 15* respondent, keeping in yfliewc_the"f'acts and circumstances of the case, are just and e._le'g_Va'l; -'There is no inférméties, either faglal or legal, in the /' /: