Karnataka High Court
Smt. Rathnamma vs Smt. C S Vijayalakshmi on 25 July, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:25751
WP No. 29927 of 2019
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.29927 OF 2019 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O LATE THIMMAIAH
MAJOR IN AGE
R/AT DODDAKANNAHALLI VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
2. SMT GOWRAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS
2(A) SMT.BHARATHI
W/O JAGADISH
D/O S.RAMAIAH AND GOWRAMMA
Digitally AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
signed by R/O DODDAKANNAHALLI COLONY
CHAITHRA A
SARJAPURA ROAD
Location:
HIGH BENGALURU-560035
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2(B) SMT.SHANTHA
W/O M ANAND
D/O S RAMAIAH AND GOWRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT NO.270
KORAMANGALA VILLAGE
BENGALURU-560095
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.V.LAKSHMI NARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT.ANUSHA L, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:25751
WP No. 29927 of 2019
AND:
1. SMT. C S VIJAYALAKSHMI
W/O N RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.37, OUT HOUSE
SRI MOOLARANGAPPA KALYANA MANTAPA
GUTTE VEERANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE
NEAR LALBAG SOCIETY
HOSUR ROAD
BENGALURU-560027
2. SRI. A N BHARATHI
W/O A N NANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O NO.28, 6TH BLOCK
80 FEET ROAD
STADIUM MAIN ROAD
KORAMANGALA
BEGLAURU-560095
3. SMT.SHINY JOSE
W/O JOSE
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/O NO.130/C, EAST STREET
A T HALLI, SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560027
4. MR.MOHAMMED FAFFIUDDIN
S/O LATE N AMMER ALI
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/O NO.20/1, BAZAR STREET
NEELASANDRA
BENGALURU-560047
5. SRI N RUDRAMURTHY
S/O K N NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:25751
WP No. 29927 of 2019
6. SMT D SWARNA GOWRY
W/O RUDRAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/O NO.31, 7TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN
SAMPANGIRAMANAGAR
BENGALURU-560027
7. MR SIMAN LAZARUS
S/O SRI SIMON
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
R/O NO.140, KENNEDY'S 4TH LANE
OORGAUM POST
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR GOLD FIELD - 563 122
8. SRI S ASHOK REDDY
S/O LATE A SHAMANNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O NO.111, ASHA NILAYA
OLD KATHALIPALYA
KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK
BENGALURU-560095
9. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU-560 009
10. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION
BENGALURU-560001
11. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU-560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R.9 TO 11;
SRI.NAGARAJA C, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.8;
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:25751
WP No. 29927 of 2019
SRI.Y.R.SADASHIVA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.RAHUL S REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R.8;
SRI.A.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R.2, 3 AND 7;
R.4 TO 6 - SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THE R-9 HEREIN DTD
27.05.2019 VIDE ANNX-C AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE
ORDER OF R-10 DTD 19.03.2012 VIDE ANNX-B OR DECLARE THAT
THE SALE TRANSACTIONS IS AB-INITIO VOID VIOLATION OF
SECTION 4(2) OF THE ACT 1/1979 AND ETC.
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 legal heirs of the original grantee feeling aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.9 - Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-D, wherein respondent No.9 - Deputy Commissioner has set aside the order dated 19.03.2012 passed by respondent No.10 - Assistant Commissioner. -5-
NC: 2023:KHC:25751 WP No. 29927 of 2019
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 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 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC -6- NC: 2023:KHC:25751 WP No. 29927 of 2019 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 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 3 (2018) 12 SCC 527 4 (2020) 14 SCC 236 -7- NC: 2023:KHC:25751 WP No. 29927 of 2019 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.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would vehemently argue and contend that on account of subsequent development, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and another and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha (cited above) cannot be followed. Referring to the amendment to the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) (Amendment) Bill, 2023 (LA Bill No.15 of 2023), he would place reliance on the Amendment Bill, -8- NC: 2023:KHC:25751 WP No. 29927 of 2019 2023, which is now sought to be incorporated Section 5 of the PTCL Act. Referring to Section 5(c), he would point out that doctrine of reasonableness is taken away by bringing an amendment to the PTCL Act. In view of amendment, the limitation of reasonable time to invoke the provisions of this Act is taken away and therefore, the grantee or legal heirs of the grantee is entitled to have a recourse to the provisions of the PTCL Act irrespective of the fact that the presumption is sought after inordinate delay. Referring to Section 5(b), the learned Senior Counsel would further place reliance on the definition of a granted land and thereafter, he would take this Court to the definition of transfer as enumerated under Section 5(e) of the PTCL Act. He would vehemently argue and contend that any alienations of a granted land is rendered as void ab initio and therefore, the doctrine of reasonableness cannot be invoked and the same cannot constitute an impediment for the grantee or legal heirs of the original grantee since it is clearly contravene Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act.
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC:25751 WP No. 29927 of 2019
6. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents - purchasers would vehemently argue and contend that the proposed Amendment Bill, 2023 is only a proposal and unless assent is given by the Governor, no reliance can be placed on the proposed Bill. He would point out that there is a delay of 16 years in seeking resumption of a granted land and therefore, Authority of jurisdiction to entertain an application is taken away only on the ground of inordinate delay and therefore, the order passed by respondent No.9 - Deputy Commissioner is strictly inconsonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited judgments does not suffer from any infirmities and would not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.
7. The learned Senior Counsel on instructions has also brought to the notice of this Court that the granted land is not in existence as on today. The subsequent purchasers have altered the character of the land in
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25751 WP No. 29927 of 2019 question and have formed a layout comprising of 11 sites and all the sites are sold. The learned Senior Counsel and Sri.A.Madhusudhan Rao, learned counsel appearing for some of the purchasers would also bring to the notice of this Court that the purchasers of a revenue site belong to lower income groups. Purchasers with great difficulty have invested money and purchased the sites for valuable sale consideration. Therefore, the reliance is placed on the principles laid down in the judgments rendered by this Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav5 [(2018) 12 SCC 527].
8. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for other contesting respondents - purchasers. Perused the proposed Bill, which is yet to come into force. In the instant case, this Court would find that there is a delay of 16 years in seeking resumption of the land. Though learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the proposed Bill, the same cannot be looked into for want of 5 (2018) 12 SCC 527
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25751 WP No. 29927 of 2019 assent by the Governor. Even if proposed Bill receives assent, the same needs to be tested bearing in mind the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and another and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha. However, such question does not arise for consideration as on today. It is just proposal Bill.
9. In the instant case, this Court would find that diligence is woefully lacking. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited judgments and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in catena of judgments consistently held that resumption has to be sought within a reasonable period. If resumption application is filed by the grantee or legal heirs of the grantee beyond reasonable time, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that the Assistant Commissioner, who vested with the jurisdiction to hold an enquiry, should not venture into examining the merits of the case but the straightaway reject the application only on the ground of inordinate
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25751 WP No. 29927 of 2019 delay. The present set of facts would also falls within the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited above.
10. The resumption application is also liable to be rejected by bearing in mind the principled laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav6. Firstly, the sale made by the original grantee through GPA holder is dated 09.12.1994 and thereafter, respondent No.8, who is a purchaser, has formed a layout and thereafter, sold the sites in favour of various persons. The application seeking resumption is filed in 2010, while the sites are sold much prior to 2010.
11. Sri.A.Madhusudhan Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 7 on instructions would submit to this Court that respondent No.3 has purchased the site under registered sale deed dated 23.08.2000, while respondent No.2 has purchased a site under registered sale deed dated 05.08.2000. Though the 6 (2018) 12 SCC 527
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25751 WP No. 29927 of 2019 learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would persuade this Court and make a statement that though layout is formed, the subsequent purchasers have not exhausted all the sites, I am not inclined to accede to the said argument. Whether revenue sites are formed by seeking permission from the competent Authority or not? is a question, which cannot be decide under the provisions of the PTCL Act. While examining the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (cited above), all that is required to be examined is as to whether if third party rights are created based on a registered sale deed for valuable sale consideration much prior to the grantee seeking resumption of the land in question, then those transactions are to be protected in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (cited above). Even if the sale deeds are in contravention of the PTCL Act as the property has changed hands and the subsequent purchasers are in possession of the sites in terms of the
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25751 WP No. 29927 of 2019 sale deed secured by them, the application filed by the grantee seeking resumption cannot be maintained.
12. The materials on record also indicate, more particularly, the impugned order under challenge that the granted land being an agricultural land is now being used for residential purpose. The subsequent purchaser having formed a layout has sold it by forming sites. Therefore, even on this count, the resumption application cannot be entertained as it would seriously prejudice the rights of the third parties. If subsequent purchasers referring to the earlier title documents have invested money and there is a proper conveyance in terms of the sale, those rights acquired by the subsequent purchasers cannot be negated by entertaining a resumption application by a person, who has slept over his rights for almost 16 years.
13. 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
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25751 WP No. 29927 of 2019 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 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. I do not find any infirmities in the order passed by respondent No.9
- Deputy Commissioner and is found to be strictly inconsonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
14. In view of discussions made supra, I proceed to pass the following:
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25751 WP No. 29927 of 2019 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.: 1