Karnataka High Court
Smt Guramma vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2020
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION No.23960/2010 (KLR-RR/SUR)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.1897/2009 (SC-ST)
IN WP No.23960/2010
BETWEEN:
SMT. GURAMMA,
W/O LATE GURUVA BHOVI
AGED 80 YEARS
SINCE DECEASED, BY HER LRS:
1(a) SMT. HANUMAMMA
D/O LATE GURAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
1(b) SHRI HANUMA BHOVI,
S/O LATE GURAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
1(c) SMT. THIMMAMMA,
D/O LATE GURAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 54YEARS,
1(d) SHRI MARIYAPPA,
S/O LATE GURAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
1(e) SMT. VENKATAMMA
D/O LATE GURAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
1(f) SMT. GURUVAMMA
D/O LATE GURAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
2
R/AT No.32, SAMPANADODDY VILLAGE,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
1(g) SHRI KARIYAPPA,
S/O LATE GURAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
SL. No.1(a) TO 1(e) AND 1(g) ARE
R/AT BYATARAYANADODDI,
BHOOTHANAHALLI DAKHALE,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRAKASH T. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M. S. BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR,
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE 560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DIST
K G ROAD,
BANGALORE 560009.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK,
TALUK OFFICE COMPOUND
ANEKAL,
BANGALORE URBAN DIST
4. THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION
ARANYA BHAVAN,
MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE 560003.
3
5. SMT. SONNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
W/O LATE MUTHAIAH,
BHOOTHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
JIGANI HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T.L. KIRANKUMAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
****
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 1.4.2010, PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT No.2, SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN CASE
No.RRT(2) CR.77.08-09 IN RESPECT OF THE LAND MEASURING
1 ACRE IN SY. No.67/P25 OF BOOTHANAHALLI VILLAGE, JIGANI
HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT, AS PER
ANNEXURE-A ETC.
IN WP No.1897/2009
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SONNAMMA
W/O LATE MUTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
2. SMT. M. YESHODHA
D/O SONNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
BYATARAYANA DODDI
BHOOTANAHALLI DHAKALE
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALOREURBAN DISTRICT
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI H. C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE)
4
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE 560 001
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE
3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION,
BANGALORE 56 0 009.
4. SMT. GURAMMA
W/O LATE GURUVA BHOVI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRs
(a) PUTTAMMA,
D/O LATE GURUVA BHOVI, & LATE GURAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
(b) HANUMA BHOVI,
S/O LATE GURUVA BHOVI, & LATE GURAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
(c) HANUMAMMA,
D/O LATE GURUVA BHOVI, & LATE GURAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
(d) MARIYAPPA,
S/O LATE GURUVA BHOVI, & LATE GURAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
(e) THIMMAMMA,
D/O LATE GURUVA BHOVI, & LATE GURAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
(f) VENKATAMMA
D/O LATE GURUVA BHOVI, & LATE GURAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
5
(g) GURAMMA
D/O LATE GURUVA BHOVI, & LATE GURAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
(h) KARIYAPPA,
S/O LATE GURUVA BHOVI, & LATE GURAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
LRS OF RESPONDENT No.4
(a) TO (h) ARE ALL
R/AT BYATARAYANA DODDI,
BHOOTHANAHALLI DAKHALE,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T.L. KIRAN KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI PRAKASH T. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4(a) TO (h))
****
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH
SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE-9, DATED 19.11.2017, WHICH IS
MARKED AS ANNEXURE-G ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Writ Petition 23960/2010 is filed by the wife of the Grantee praying to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 1.4.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent - Special Deputy Commissioner in case No.RRT(2) CR.77;08-09 in respect of the land measuring 6 1 acre in Sy.No.67/P25 of Boothanahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District, Annexure-A; and to direct the 4th respondent - Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk to restore/transfer the Katha and revenue entries in her name in respect of the above said land on the basis of the Grant Certificate dated 10.12.1960, Annexure-B and in the alternatively to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to formulate a Scheme for Rehabilitation of the petitioner and similarly placed grantees of the land in Bhoothanahalli village in any of the Government lands, either in Bhoothanahalli village or in the neighbourhood to enable herself and others to continue to make a living;
2. Writ Petition 1897/2009 is filed by the purchasers praying to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 19.11.2007 in KSCST(a)106/2006-07 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division, 7 Bangalore-09, Annexure-G and 3.11.2008 in SCST(a)66/2007-08 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore-9, Annexure-H and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the schedule lands and not demolish the existing constructions put up by them thereon.
3. It is the case of the Guramma, the wife of the grantee that the land bearing Sy.No.66/3 measuring 1 acre 9 guntas out of 1 acre 32 guntas of Boothanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District was granted in favour of her husband Sri Guruva Bhovi on 10.12.1960, who had sold the said land in favour of one Thimmaiah on 29.4.1970. In turn the said Thimmaiah sold the same in favour of one Smt. Puttalakshmi under the registered Sale Deed dated 18.4.1973. The said Puttalakshmi in turn sold the said land to Muthaiah. After the death of said Muthaiah, the 8 khata was transferred in the name of his wife Smt. Sonnamma as per IHC.No.1/2001-92, who in turn sold the same in favour of the present petitioner on 18.11.2007 under a registered Sale Deed for a valuable consideration.
4. When the things stood thus on 5.7.2007, Smt. Guramma, the wife of the grantee, filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act (for short, 'KPTCL Act') for restoration of the land. The Assistant Commissioner considering the entire material on record by the impugned order dated 19.11.2007 allowed the application and restored the land in favour of the wife of the grantee-Smt. Guramma holding that the Sale Deed dated 29.4.1970 executed in favour of Shri Muthaiah, husband of Smt. Sonnamma is null and void which was 9 challenged by the purchaser - i.e., Smt. Sonnamma in W.P.No.1897/2009 before the Deputy Commissioner, who after hearing both the parties, by the impugned order dated 3.11.2008 dismissed the appeal. Therefore, against the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner restoring the land in favour of the wife of the original Grantee - Guramma, Writ Petition No.1897/2009 is filed.
5. It is strange that the very Deputy Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal filed by the purchaser - Sonnamma, has proceeded to initiate proceedings against the very purchaser - Sonnamma under the provisions of Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 in RRT(2)(a)CR/77/2008-09 and by the order dated 1.4.2010 has held that the saguvali chit produced by Smt. Sonnamma cannot be taken as cognizance and the entries made by virtue of the same as well as by virtue of the Sale Deeds are 10 liable to be cancelled. Apart from that, it was observed that Smt. Sonnamma was not in possession of the land in question. Accordingly, a direction was issued to cancel the mutation made in favour of Smt. Sonnamma and others and enter the name of the State Government in respect of the land in question. Accordingly, mutation in respect of IHC No.1/2001-02 with regard to land bearing Sy.No.67/P25 measuring 1 acre 1 gunta situated at Bhootanahalli vallage, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk which was standing in the name of Sonnamma - the purchaser was cancelled and the Tahsildar, Anekal was directed to round off the name of Smt. Sonnamma and others in respect of the land in Sy.No.67/P25 measuring 1 acre 1 gunta wherever it occurs in the revenue records and enter as 'Government-Forest'. Hence, Writ Petition No.23960/2010 is filed by the purchaser for the relief sought for.
11
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.
7. Sri H.C. Shivaramu, learned Counsel for the purchaser-Sonnamma, who is petitioner in Writ Petition No.1897/2009 and respondent in W.P.No.23960/2010 contended that the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of Section 5 of the KPTCL Act restoring the land in favour of the original grantee and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner are erroneous, contrary to the material on record and cannot be sustained. He would further contend that admittedly when the grant was made on 10.12.1960, the first alienation took place on 29.4.1970 and an application was filed only on 5.7.2007 under the provisions of the KPTCL Act after a lapse of more than 27 years and therefore, the very proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner is totally without jurisdiction and barred by limitation which cannot be 12 sustained in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vivek M. Hinduja and Other -vs- M. Ashwatha and Others reported in 2018(1) Kar.L.R. 176 (SC) particularly at paragraphs-4,5, 10 and 11. Therefore, he sought to allow W.P.No.1897/2009 filed by the purchaser-Sonnamma.
8. Per contra, Sri Prakash T. Hebbar, learned Counsel for the respondents - legal representatives of Guramma in W.P.No.1897/2009 and petitioners in W.P.No.23960/2010 sought to justify the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Special Deputy Commissioner and contended that though the grant was made on 10.12.1960 with a non-alienation condition of 15 years, the original grantee in violation of the said condition has sold the land in question within the stipulated period i.e., on 29.4.1970 and therefore, the Assistant Commissioner has held that the alienation made is in 13 violation of the conditions of the grant. Accordingly, he has restored the land in question which is confirmed by the Special Deputy Commissioner in the appeal filed by the purchaser-Sonnamma. He further contended that on 19.11.2007, after restoration of the land by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Special Deputy Commissioner on 3.11.2008 holding that the grant was genuine, both the Assistant Commissioner and Special Deputy Commissioner have held that the Sale Deed made in favour of the Vendor of Sonnamma as null and void. Once it has been held that the grant was genuine and the land in question has been restored in favour of the wife of the original grantee-Guramma in exercise of power under the provisions of Section 5 of the KPTCL Act, it is not open for the Special Deputy Commissioner to initiate proceedings on 1.4.2010 under the provisions of Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act after a lapse of more than 50 years which is unreasonable.
14
9. The learned Counsel further contended that the grantee has alienated only the land measuring 1 acre 9 guntas in Sy.No.66/3 and 1 acre 1 gunta in Sy.No.67/P25 and unfortunately, the Special Deputy Commissioner without issuing notice to the grantee though it was not alienated, has initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
10. The learned Counsel would further contend that, on the one hand, the authorities viz., Assistant Commissioner and Special Deputy Commissioner exercising their powers under the provisions of KPTCL Act in the proceedings initiated, have held that the grant was valid and hence have restored the land to the wife of the original grantee-Guramma, but very strangely on the other hand, in the proceedings initiated under the provisions of 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act by the Deputy Commissioner, it has been 15 held that it is a 'Forest land' and the saguvali chit was not genuine which is contrary and cannot be sustained. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition 1897/2009 filed by the purchaser-Sonnamma and allow Writ Petition No.23960/2010 filed by the original grantee-Guramma.
11. Sri T.L. Kiran Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents- State sought to justify the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Special Deputy Commissioner in W.P.No.1897/2009 filed by the purchaser-Sonnamma. He further submitted that admittedly the grant was made on 10.12.1960 and alienation was made within the non-alienation period of 15 years and the first sale was made on 29.4.2007 in favour of Thimmaiah, and ultimately the sale made in favour of Sonnamma was also void. Therefore, both the Assistant Commissioner and the Special Deputy 16 Commissioner under the provisions of Sections 5 and 5A of the KPTCL Act have rightly restored the land and accordingly, Smt. Sonnamma is not entitled for any relief before this Court.
12. The learned Additional Government Advocate further contended that in the case of the wife of the original grantee in W.P. 23960/2010 with regard to the land bearing Sy.NO.67/P25 measuring 1 acre 1 gunta, the documents produced before the Deputy Commissioner were not genuine as it was a minor forest land totally measuring 410 acres 21 guntas of Boothanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Hence, he sought to dismiss the writ petition.
17
13. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is the case of the wife of the grantee- Guramma that Sy.No.66/3 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas and Sy.No.67/P25 measuring 1 acre 1 guntas situated at Boothanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District were granted in favour of her husband late Sri Guruvi Bovi on 10.12.1960. According to her, the said land i.e., Sy.No.66/3 was alienated in favour of one Thimmaiah and said Thimmaiah sold the same in favour of one Smt. Puttalakshmi, who in turn sold to Muthaiah. Again Muthaiah sold the same in favour of Smt. Sonnamma w/o late Muthaiah - petitioner in W.P.1897/2009 only Sy.No.66/3 measuring 1 acre 9 guntas out of 1 acre 30 guntas.
14. It is also not in dispute that after the alienation was made, the Assistant Commissioner initiated proceedings on the application filed by the wife of original grantee i.e., Smt. Guramma in respect of 18 both survey numbers and considering the entire material on record, the Assistant Commissioner by the order dated 19.11.2007 allowed the application filed by the wife of the original grantee and restored the land under the provisions of Section 5(1)(a) of the KPTCL Act for resumption of 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No.66/3 and 1 acre in Sy.No.67 of Boothanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District to the Government free from all encumbrances and under the provisions of Section 5(1)(b) of the KPTCL Act restored the same in favour of the original grantee or his legal heirs.
15. It is also not in dispute that the purchaser- Sonnamma i.e., petitioner in W.P.1897/2009 though purchased the land bearing Sy.No.66/3 measuring 1 acre 9 guntas out of 1 acre 30 guntas filed an appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of Section 5A of the KPTCL Act in respect of the lands bearing both survey numbers. The Special 19 Deputy Commissioner after hearing both parties, by the order dated 3rd November, 2008 dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. In view of the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Special Deputy Commissioner, it is clear that both the lands bearing Sy.No.66/3 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas and Sy.No.67/P25 measuring 1 acre 1 gunta were restored in favour of the wife of the original grantee.
16. It is also not in dispute that being aggrieved by the both the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Special Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of KPTCL Act, the petitioner purchaser - Sonnamma filed W.P.No.1897/2009 in respect of both the lands bearing Sy.No.66/3 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas and Sy.No.67/P25 measuring 1 acre 1 gunta even though the petitioner purchased only 1 acre 9 guntas in 20 Sy.No.66/3, the said lands were restored in favour of the wife of the original grantee, even though the wife of the original grantee-Guramma filed an application on 5.7.2007 under the provisions of Section 5 of the KPTCL Act for restoration of the land after a lapse of 27 years.
17. Though under the provisions of KPTCL Act, there is no limitation prescribed to file an application for restoration of land, the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreting the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the KPTCL Act in the case of Vivek M.Hinduja and Other - vs- M.Ashwatha and Others reported in 2018(1) Kar.L.R.176 (SC) at paragraphs 4, 5, 10 and 11 has held as under:
"4. Arguments have been addressed before us at length on whether the present appellants had perfected their titles on the date of the coming into force of the Karnataka Act. We are not inclined to go into this question because the instant matters can be decided on an aspect 21 settled by this Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs. and Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka.. In these two decisions, one of which arose under the Karnataka Act, this Court has held that the authorities entrusted with the power to annul proceedings purported to have been made by the original grantees, must exercise their powers to do so, whether on an application, or suo motu, within a reasonable time since no time is prescribed by law for taking such action. In the decided cases, action had been initiated after about 20 to 25 years of the coming into force of the Karnataka Act.
5. In the present cases, it is undisputed that the action had been initiated after almost 20 years from the coming into force of the Karnataka Act. In principle, we do not see any reason why the delay in the present cases should be considered to be reasonable. There is no material difference between the period of delay in the present cases and he decided cases.
10. In the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. State of Maharashtra, this 22 court reproduced the following observations with regard to the declaration of orders beyond the period of limitation as invalid:
"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, the Court
cannot give the declaration
sought for'."
(emphasis supplied)
11. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations. It is, however, necessary to add that where limitation is not prescribed, the party ought to approach the competent Court or authority within reasonable time, beyond which no relief 23 can be granted. As decided earlier, this principle would apply even to suo motu actions.
18. The learned Counsel for the wife of the Grantee-Guramma as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate have not produced any contra judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the judgment stated supra..
19. In view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated above, the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner initiating proceedings under the provisions of the KPTCL Act after a lapse of 27 years and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained only in so far as the land bearing Sy.No.66/3 measuring 1 acre 9 guntas out of 1 acre 30 guntas of Boothanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District. On that ground alone, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 24
20. It is very interesting that the Special Deputy Commissioner as the Appellate Authority under the provisions of KPTCL Act while deciding the appeal No.SC.ST(A)66/2007-08 while confirming the grant made in favour of the original grantee and issuance of saguvali chit, has come to the conclusion that, the grantee has alienated the property in question in violation of the conditions of grant and therefore, held that the alienation as null and void and the purchasers will not derive any right and title over the lands by such Sale Deeds. Ultimately, restored the lands in favour of the wife of the original grantee-Guramma - petitioner in W.P.No.23960/2010, but very strangely has initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act only against the purchaser and no notice is issued to the petitioner in W.P.No.23960/2010 i.e., wife of the original grantee in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.67/P25 measuring 1 25 acre 1 gunt in the year 2008-09 and has proceeded to hold that the land bearing Sy.No.67 totally measures 410 acres 21 guntas including 1 acre in Sy.No.67/P25 and the same is a minor forest land and the entries made in the revenue records were not genuine. It was further held that the alleged grant made was not genuine and therefore, the purchaser-Sonnamma was not entitled for the said land. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the Tahsildar to cancel the name of Sonnamma and others in the mutation and revenue records in respect of land bearing Sy.No.67/P25 measuring 1 acre of Boothanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District and to enter as the 'Government-Forest', ignoring the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the SC/ST KPTCL Act restoring the lands in favour of the wife of the original grantee. The same cannot be sustained.
26
21. The dual stand taken by the very Special Deputy Commissioner on the one hand exercising powers under the provisions of SC/ST KPTCL Act and on the other hand initiating proceedings under the provisions of Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act would clearly indicate that the authorities at one breadth stating that it is a granted land, have restored the land in favour of the wife of the original grantee by declaring that the sole as null and void which is in violation of the provisions of KPTCL Act and at another breadth, it is stated that it is not a granted land at all since it is minor forest land. The very Special Deputy Commissioner acting under two different provisions, one under the SC/ST KPTCL Act and another under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, has taken two different views based on the very documents which is impermissible. While confirming that it was a granted land and that the sale as null and void has not given any finding about minor forest while exercising 27 the powers under the provisions of the SC/ST KPTCL Act by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. Absolutely, no reasons are forthcoming in the impugned order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of Section 136(3) of the Act after a lapse of inordinate delay of more than 50 years. On that ground alone, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is liable to be quashed.
22. It is unfortunate that the authorities, while exercising powers, have not applied their mind to the original records. They cannot pass orders according to their own whims and fancies, thereby depriving the valuable rights of the parties or person who purchase the land in question for valuable consideration.
23. The Deputy Commissioner who has acted under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes Scheduled 28 Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, and also under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, under the same Government is under the constitutional duty to discharge his duty under the Act. The same has not been done in the present case. Every public servant is a trustee of the society and in all facets of public administration, every public servant has to exhibit honesty, integrity, sincerity and faithfulness in implementation of the political, social, economic and constitutional policies to integrate the nation, to achieve excellence and efficiency in the public administration. A public servant entrusted with duty and power to implement constitutional policy under Articles 14, 21 and 300A and all inter-related directive principles of state policy under the Constitution, should exhibit transparency in implementation and of accountable for due effectuation of constitutional goals.
29
24. Admittedly, in the present case, the Deputy Commissioner acting under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, in one breath held that the grant was made in favour of the grantee was genuine and declared the sale deed executed in favour of the purchaser as null and void; and in another breath, the very same Deputy Commissioner, exercising powers under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, held that the land in question was a forest land.
25. This clearly indicates that the Deputy Commissioner has not discharged the duty entrusted to him under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, and also under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and in accordance with law.
30
26. The dual stand taken by the authorities, created unnecessary litigation between the parties, thereby, the flood gate opened, in which, the major litigant is the Government, because of the lack of exhibition of honesty, sincerity and faithfulness in the implementation of either of the the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, and the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. This is a classic case where the authorities acted according to their own whims and fancies, misusing the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, and the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and the initiation made after lapse of more than 50 years under the provisions of Section 136(6) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, is impermissible.
31
27. It is well settled that, wherever there is no limitation prescribed, the authorities are expected to act or initiate proceedings within a reasonable period. The Deputy Commissioner who acted under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, and confirmed the grant made in favour of the original grantee, later, he cannot initiate proceedings under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 against the purchaser holding that the grant is not genuine, after lapse of 50 years. The Deputy Commissioner cannot unsettle the settled position of the parties. The initiation made by the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, after lapse of 50 years cannot be sustained.
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in an identical circumstances in the case of Joint Collector Ranga 32 Reddy District and Another -vs- D. Narsing Rao and Others reported in (2015)3 SCC 695 relying upon the dictum in the case of State of Gujarat -vs- Patil Raghav Natha reported in (1969) 2 SCC 187 while considering the provisions of Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, held that:-
"Though there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 211 to revise an order made under Section 65 of the Act, the said power must be exercised in reasonable time and on the facts of the case in which the decision arose, the power came to be exercised more than one year after the order and that was held to be too late."
29. The Hon'ble Apex Court considering the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, in the case of Santoshkumar Shivgond Patil -vs- Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale reported in (2009)9 SCC 352 at para-11 has held that:-
33
"It seems to be fairly settled that if a statute does not prescribe the time-limit for exercise of revisional power, it does not mean that such power can be exercised at any time; rather it should be exercised within a reasonable time. It is so because the law does not expect a settled thing to be unsettled after a lapse of long time. Where the legislature does not provide for any length of time within which the power of revision is to be exercised by the authority, suo motu or otherwise, it is plain that exercise of such power within reasonable time is inherent therein. In the said case, the reasonable period within which the power of revision would be exercised was three years under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code subject, of course, to the exceptional circumstances in a given case, but surely exercise of revisional power after a lapse of 17 years is not a reasonable time. Invocation of revisional power by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 34 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is plainly an abuse of process in the facts and circumstances of the case assuming that the order of the Tahsildar passed on 30.3.1976 is flawed and legally not correct."
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav, reported in (2018) 12 SCC 527 has held that actions must be taken within reasonable time, where no period of limitation specified - even while dealing with beneficial legislations, rights accrued by third persons cannot be ignored lightly where no period of limitation prescribed and actions initiated after delay and at paragraphs-9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 it has been held as under:
"9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently submitted that the delay must be overlooked because the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to bring relief to 35 farmers who had been dispossessed during the proscribed period. The reliance was placed on a judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. Padma [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.C. Padma, (2003) 7 SCC 713 :
2003 SCC (Cri) 1709] , where this Court held that in a motor accident which took place on 18-12-1989, a claim petition barred by time but filed on 2-11-1995, after limitation itself was removed from the statute was maintainable. This Court held that there could be no resort to Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 even though no period of limitation was prescribed. Accordingly, the Court held that the claim petition could not be rejected at the threshold on the ground of limitation, after the deletion of sub- section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which had provided a period of six months. This view was taken having regard to the purpose of the statute. We, however, find that the judgment relied on has no application to 36 the present case. It is a settled law where the statute does not provide for a period of limitation, the provisions of the statute must be invoked within a reasonable time.
10. In Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edn., "reasonable time" is explained as follows:
"That is a reasonable time that preserves to each party the rights and advantages he possesses and protects each party from losses that he ought not to suffer."
Thus, time must be reckoned reasonably, not only in order to
preserve rights and advantages a party possesses, but equally to protect each party from the losses he ought not to suffer. Thus, whether an action has been taken within a reasonable time, must also be viewed from the point of 37 view of the party who might suffer losses.
11. In the instant case, we find that the High Court had observed as follows:
"The auction-sale took place in 1942, the application for restoration of the lands was first made in 1975 and the appeal from it was dismissed for default in 1983. In the meanwhile, the disputed lands changed hands twice and were in the possession of the appellant-writ petitioners from 1962 and 1986.
Such a long-settled position could only be upset for some very compelling reasons and on making out an extremely strong case for restoration of the appeal. There is nothing on record to suggest anything remotely like that. Secondly, the action of the Additional Collector in restoring the appeal even without any notice to the appellant- writ petitioners was clearly illegal 38 and in contravention of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act."
The High Court was clearly right in the view it had taken.
12. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that power of the Additional Collector for restoration of lands could have been exercised suo motu and since no limitation was prescribed for exercise of such power, the delay in this case may be overlooked. This submission presupposes that where the power can be exercised suo motu, such exercise may be undertaken at any time. The submission is directly contrary to a decision of this Court in Collector v. D. Narsing Rao[Collector v. D. Narsing Rao, (2015) 3 SCC 695 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 396] where this Court affirmed the view [Collector v. D. Narasing Rao, 2010 SCC Online AP 406 : (2010) 6 ALD 748] of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Para '17' of the judgment reads as follows:
(D. Narsing Rao case [Collector v. D. 39 Narsing Rao, (2015) 3 SCC 695 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 396] , SCC p. 706, para 17) "17. ... that the suo motu revision undertaken after a long lapse of time, even in the absence of any period of limitation was arbitrary and opposed to the concept of rule of law."
Thus, we have no hesitation in rejecting this contention.
13. In our view, where no period of limitation is prescribed, the action must be taken, whether suo motu or on the application of the parties, within a reasonable time. Undoubtedly, what is reasonable time would depend on the circumstances of each case and the purpose of the statute. In the case before us, we are clear that the action is grossly delayed and taken beyond reasonable time, particularly, in view of the fact that the land was transferred several times during this period, obviously, in the faith that it is not encumbered by any rights.
40
14. We are of the view that merely because the legislation is beneficial and no limitation is prescribed, the rights acquired by persons cannot be ignored lightly and proceedings cannot be initiated after unreasonable delay as observed by this Court in Situ Sahu v. State of Jharkhand[Situ Sahu v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 8 SCC 340] .
31. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition filed by the purchaser in W.P.No.1897/2009 in respect of Sy.No.66/3 measuring 1 acre 9 guntas out of 1 acre 30 guntas of Boothanahalli, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, has to be allowed, in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vivek M. Hinduja and Other -vs- M. Ashwatha and Others reported in 2018(1) Kar.L.R. 176 (SC), supra.
41
32. It is also relevant to state that the very Special Deputy Commissioner restored the land in favour of the wife of the original grantee under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, while exercising the powers under Section 5A of the Act in Appeal No.K.SC.ST.(A)66/2007- 08 dated 03.11.2008. Very strangely, has initiated proceedings against the purchaser Sonnamma when the land was already restored in favour of the wife of the original grantee. The said order is not binding on the wife of the original grantee as the grant made in favour of the original grantee in respect of Sy.No.67/P25 measuring 1 acre 1 gunta.
33. For the reasons stated above:
i) W.P.No.23960/2010 filed by the wife of the original grantee is allowed. The 42 impugned order dated 1.4.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent - Special Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A, is hereby quashed in respect of the land bearing Sy.No. 67/P25 measuring 1 acre 1 gunta of Boothanahalli Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District and the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk shall restore the Katha and revenue records in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law.
ii) W.P.No.1897/2009 filed by the purchaser is hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 19.11.2007 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-
Division, Bangalore, Annexure-G and 3.11.2008 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Annexure-H are hereby quashed only in 43 respect of Sy.No.66/3 measuring 1 acre 9 guntas out of 1 acre 32 guntas of Boothanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District.
iii) Rule is made absolute.
Sd/-
Judge Nsu/-