Karnataka High Court
Sri. Konappa vs Deputy Commissioner on 11 January, 2023
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.14663 OF 2022 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
SRI KONAPPA
S/O.LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT J.V. COLONY GRAMA
J.THIMMASANDRA POST
KASABA HOBLI
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HEGDE RAMAKRISHNA S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR - 563 101
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLAR SUB DIVISION
KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101
3. SRI C.VENKATESHAPPA
S/O.CHIKKAVENKATA BHOVI
MAJOR
2
4. CHIKKAVENKATA BHOVI
S/O.LATE LATE VENKATA BHOVI
MAJOR
THE RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4
R/AT J.V.COLONY GRAMA
J.THIMMASANDRA POST
KASABA HOBLI
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135
5. SRI SEENAPPA
S/O.LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
MAJOR
ALAVATA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK - 563 135
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, AGA FOR R-1 &
R-2; NOTICE ARE SERVED TO R-3, R-4 & R-5)
***
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY
QUASHING ORDER DATED 27.04.2022 PASSED BY THE
IST RESPONDENT IN P.T.C.L/18/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-
A AND ORDER DATED 15.10.2020 PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT IN LND/SC/ST/SVP/47/2016-17 VIDE
ANNEXURE-B 7 ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
This writ petition is preferred by the petitioner - purchaser seeking for an order in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 27.04.2022 passed by the respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District in case No.PTCL/18/2020 vide Annexure-A and also the order dated 15.10.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub- Division, Kolar Taluk in case No. LND/SC/ST/SVP/47/ 2016-17 vide Annexure-B.
2. Brief facts of the case are:
That vide order dated 10.05.1972 the land measuring 3 Acres in Sy. No.8, situated at Ramapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District, came to be granted in favor of Chikkavenkata Bhovi S/o Venkata Bhovi by way of Saguvali chit. The said Chikkavenkata Bhovi, sold the land measuring 1 Acre 20 guntas of land out of 3 Acres to the petitioner herein by way of registered sale deed dated 18.08.1993.4
3. It is stated that after a lapse of 24 years from the said sale deed executed during the year 1993 and after lapse of 50 years from the date of original grant and issue of saguvali chit, one of the son of the original grantee Chikkavenkata Bhovi - respondent No.3, filed an application before the respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of the Karnataka Schedule Cates and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Land) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for brevity) seeking to cancel the sale deed dated 18.08.1993 executed in favour of the petitioner and sought restoration of the land in their favour.
4. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 15.10.2020 allowed the petition filed by respondent No.3 in case No. LND/SC/ST/SVP/47/ 2016-17 vide Annexure-B.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner, petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner in case No.PTCL/18/2020. The 5 respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner on consideration of the case on merits of the matter dismissed the appeal on 27.04.2022.
6. Petitioner being aggrieved by both the orders passed by the respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, has preferred the present writ petition before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contends that the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, vide Annexures - A & B, are illegal, perverse and the same deserve to be set aside. He further contends that the respondent No.3, son of original grantee Chikkavenkata Bhovi, had approached respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner after lapse of 24 years from the date of execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 18.08.1993 and after lapse of 50 years from the original grant made on 10.05.1972. Hence, there is inordinate delay in approaching the Court for seeking relief. 6
8. The petitioner had also raised the objection before respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner with regard to petition / application filed before him was barred by limitation, but the same was negatived. Even before the respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner the aspect of inordinate delay in approaching the Court by the respondent No.3 is not considered.
9. Learned counsel for petitioner further contends that after purchase of the land in question in the year 1993, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, harvesting the crops by investing huge sums of money. Therefore, respondent No.3 and 4 absolutely do not have any right, title or interest over the property in question. He further contends that respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 have not given any proper reason in condoning the delay by allowing the application and order for restoration of the land in favour of the respondent No.3 and 4.
7
10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NIKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI vs STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2018(1) Kar. L. J. 5 (SC); in the case of VIVEK M. HINDUJA AND OTHERS vs M.ASHWATHA AND OTHERS reported in 2018 (1) Kar.L.R. 176 (SC) and also in the case of CHADDI LAL YADAV vs HARI KISHOR YADAV reported in 2018(1) Kar.L.R. 1 (SC).
11. Despite service of notice on respondent Nos.3 to 5, there is no representation on their behalf. Sufficient opportunity was granted by this Court by providing two opportunities on earlier date of hearing and even today there is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5. In view of the same and since there being inordinate delay in respondents approaching the respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner and also there being no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4, it appears that they are not interested in prosecuting the matter.
8
12. Learned Addl. Government Advocate is present before Court and sustains the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 & 2 and contends that the same does not call for interference by this Court. He further contends that the impugned orders passed in the interest and welfare of the grantee and the legislative intent of the Legislation have been rightly adhered to under the Act. The order is sustainable and does not call for interference. However, learned AGA fairly submits that he is in agreement with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court with regard to the approach by the grantees within reasonable time.
13. It is seen that the legislative intent in incorporating Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, is for the purpose to benefit grantee belonging to weaker sections are not taken for a ride by the purchasers by taking undue advantage of their illiteracy and poverty. However, same will have to be in conformity with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court which has held 9 that erroneous and any fraudulent act by the purchasers against the grantee will have to be protected.
14. In the case on hand, land is granted in the year 1972 and the sale deed being registered in favour of the petitioner in the year 1993. Pursuant to which, petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question. Admittedly, there is inordinate delay of 24 years in preferring the application challenging the sale deed and restoring the land in favour of the grantee.
15. This Court in the case of SMT. MANGAMMA AND OTHERS vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, in W.A. NO.16/2021 - DD 05.04.2021, has opined that any delay of more than 9 to 10 years without any cogent reason or explanation for the inordinate delay would have to be carefully considered by the Courts. Grantees or their legal representations would have to approach the Cdourts within reasonable time and make out a case for restoration of the land on the basis of bonafide reason, to set aside and that if 10 there is illegality and injustice caused to the grantee, same is liable to be restored & rectified. In the present case on hand nothing has been established or made out by the Grantees with regard to exploitation of their poverty or illiteracy, I do not find that the respondents No.3 and 4 grantees have made out any reason for interference of the case and there is delay of more than 24 years as on the date of registration of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner.
16. It is not in dispute that the Act does not prescribe any specific time period for preferring an application to set aside sale or for restoration of land to the Grantee. But it is settled position of law that an aggrieved person is required to approach the Court/Authorities within reasonable period of time. This aspect of the matter is fortified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI vs STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2020 (14) Scc
332. 11
17. It is further fortified in the case of JAGADISH vs STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2019 SCC online 1901. There is an inordinate delay of 24 years from the date of execution of Sale Deed & 50 years from the date of grant, which is glarring at this Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that 24 years is too long a period to condone with regard to delay & nothing is placed on record to show that it is due to bonafide reasons.
18. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
ORDER (1) The writ petition is allowed.;
(2) The order dated 27.04.2022 passed by
the respondent No.1 - Deputy
Commissioner, Kolar District in case
No.PTCL/18/2020 vide Annexure-A and also the order dated 15.10.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub-Division, Kolar 12 Taluk in case No. LND/SC/ST/SVP/47/ 2016-17 vide Annexure-B, are set aside.
Sd/-
JUDGE VK