Karnataka High Court
Sri K D Lingaraju S/O Late Doddaiah vs The Deputy Commissioner on 13 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.7224 OF 2010 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K D LINGARAJU
S/O LATE DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
DODKODLI GRAMA , KODLIPET POST
SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 231.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KODAGU DISTRICT
MADIKERI-571 201.
2. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
MADIKERI SUB-DIVISION
KODAGU DISTRICT
MADIKERI-571 201.
3. SRI. K B NINGAIAH
S/O BASAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
DODKODLI GRAMA, KODLIPET POST
2
SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 231.
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
3(A) SMT. K.P. LEELAVATHI
W/O LATE K.B. NINGAIAH
MAJOR
3(B) NIVEDITA
D/O LATE K.B. NINGAIAH
MAJOR
3(C) SRI. INDRESH K.N.
S/O LATE K.B. INGAIAH
MAJOR
ALL 3(A) TO (C) ARE RESIDING AT
DODKODLI GRAMA, KODLIPET POST
SOMAWARPET TALUK
KODAGU - 571 231.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. SANDESH KUMAR, HTGP FOR R-1 AND R-2
SRI. CHANDRAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R 3(A-C)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DSTRD 3.3.08 PASSED BY THE R2
VIDE ANNEX-B AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 11.1.10 OF
THE R1 VIDE ANNEX-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 3.3.2008 passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-B and the order dated 11.1.2010 passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A has filed the present writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:
The land in Sy.No.156/56 of Somwarpet Taluk to an extent of 3 acres was granted in favour of respondent No.3 on 29.2.1983. Respondent No.3 had sold the land in favour of the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 29.3.1989. The Tahsildar has submitted a report to the Assistant Commissioner vide report dated 26.9.2001 alleging that the sale transaction is in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 4 (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain lands) Act 1978 (for short 'the PTCL Act'). On the basis of the report submitted by the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner has initiated proceedings under the PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner after enquiry allowed the application and declared that the registered sale deed dated 29.3.1989 as null and void and ordered to restore possession of the land in favour of respondent No.3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 11.1.2010 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned HCGP for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3.
5
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land was granted in favour of respondent No.3 on 29.3.1983. He further submits that respondent No.3 was working as a teacher and he had sold the said land in favour of the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 29.3.1989. He further submits that on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner has initiated proceedings under the PTCL Act. The proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner is beyond reasonable time i.e. after lapse of 12 years from the date of execution of the registered sale deed. In order to buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 which is further reiterated in the case of MR.VIVEK H HINDUJA AND OTHERS v. MR. ASWATHA AND 6 OTHERS reported in (2020) 14 SCC 228. Hence, he submits that the Assistant Commissioner ought to have dropped the proceedings under the PTCL Act on the ground of delay and laches. But on the contrary, the Assistant Commissioner has allowed the application and declared the sale deed as null and void. On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner has confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Hence, he submits that the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and hence, on the grounds prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the land in question was a granted land and respondent No.3 belongs to scheduled caste and that the sale is in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. He further submits that the 7 Assistant Commissioner was justified in declaring the registered sale deed as null and void and the Deputy Commissioner has rightly dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. There is no error in the impugned orders and hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. The land in question was granted in favour of respondent No.3 on 29.3.1983. Respondent No.3 had sold the said land in favour of the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 29.3.1989. On the strength of the registered sale deed, the petitioner approached the Tahsildar to effect mutation in the name of the petitioner in respect of the land in question. Respondent No.3 filed objections to the said application. The Tahsildar on the basis of the 8 objection filed by respondent No.3 has submitted a report that the sale is in violation of the PTCL Act. On the strength of the report submitted by the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner has initiated proceedings under the PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner without considering the delay and laches has initiated the proceedings under the PTCL Act, and has proceeded to pass the order. Suo motu proceedings has been initiated after lapse of more than 12 years from the date of execution of the registered sale deed. Thus there is a inordinate delay in initiating the proceedings under the PTCL Act in view of the law laid in paragraphs 8 and 10 the aforesaid judgments respectively :
NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. [(2020) 14 SCC 232] [2018(6) KAR.L.J. 792 (SC)], [2018(1) KLR 5(SC)] CIVIL APPEAL NO.1390/2009, DD.26.10.2017 (SC/ST - SECTION 5 OF PTCL ACT)
"8. However, the question that arises is with regard to terms of Section 5 of the Act which 9 enables any interested person to make an application for having the transfer annulled as void under Section 4 of the Act. This Section does not prescribe any period within which such an application can be made. Neither does it prescribe the period within which suo motu action may be taken. This Court in the case of CHHEDI LAL YADAV & ORS. VS. HARI KISHORE YADAV (D) THR. LRS. & ORS., 2017(6) SCALE 459 and also in the case of NINGAPPA VS. DY. COMMISSIONER & ORS. (C.A.NO.3131 of 2007, decided on 14.07.2011) reiterated a settled position in law that whether Statute provided for a period of limitation, provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. It is held that action whether on an application of the parties, or suo motu, must be taken within a reasonable time. That action arose under the provisions of a similar Act which provided for restoration of certain lands to farmers which were sold for arrears of rent or from which they were ejected for arrears of land from 1st January, 1939 to 31st December, 1950. This relief was granted to the farmers due to flood in the Kosi River which make agricultural operations impossible. An application for restoration was made after 24 years and was allowed. It is in that background that this Court upheld that it was unreasonable to do so. We have no hesitation in upholding that the present application for restoration of land made by respondent-Rajappa was made after an 10 unreasonably long period and was liable to be dismissed on that ground. Accordingly, the judgments of the Karnataka High Court, namely, R. RUDRAPPA VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, 2000 (1) KARNATAKA LAW JOURNAL, 523, MADDURAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2006 (4) KARNATAKA LAW JOURNAL, 303 AND G. MAREGOUDA VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA AND ORS, 2000(2) KR.L.J.SH. N.4B holding that there is no limitation provided by Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, an application can be made at any time, are overruled. Order accordingly."
VIVEK M. HINDUJA & ORS. VS. M. ASHWATHA & ORS. [(2020) 14 SCC 228] "10. In PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [(2007) 5 SCC 211] this court reproduced the following observations with regard to the declaration of orders beyond the period of limitation as invalid: (SCC p.226, para 39) "39. Setting aside the decree passed by all the courts and referring to several cases, this court held that if the party aggrieved by invalidity of the order intends to approach the court for declaration that the order against him was inoperative, he must come before the court within the period prescribed by limitation. 'If the statutory time of limitation expires, 11 the court cannot give the declaration sought for'."
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable time. The suo motu proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner is beyond reasonable time. The Assistant Commissioner ought to have dropped the proceedings on the ground of delay and laches, on the contrary has passed an order. Further respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner without considering the delay in initiating suo motu proceedings has proceeded to confirm the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are contrary to the laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments supra.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the following order is passed :
12
ORDER The writ petition is allowed;
The impugned orders are hereby set aside and quashed.
SD/-
JUDGE rs