Karnataka High Court
S A Ansar Pasha vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 May, 2023
-1-
WP No. 3080 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 3080 OF 2014 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
S.A. ANSAR PASHA,
S/O. S.P. SYED ANWAR SAB,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT KADARI PALYA,
SHIDLAGHATTA TOWN,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY G.P.A.
HOLDER S.A.MUNAVAR,
S/O. S.P.SYED ANWAR,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT KADARI PALYA,
SHIDLAGHATTA TOWN,
Digitally
signed by CHICKBALLAPUR -562 101.
ALBHAGYA
Location: ...PETITIONER
HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. S.A. SUDHINDRA., ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
-2-
WP No. 3080 of 2014
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT,
CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
CHICKBALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION,
CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 101.
4. SMT.VENKATAMMA,
W/O LATE. POOJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
R/O SIDDARTHANAGAR,
A.K.COLONY,
SHIDLAGHATTA TOWN,
CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 102.
5. P.NARAYANA SWAMY,
S/O LATE. POOJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
R/O SIDDARTHANAGAR,
A.K.COLONY,
SHIDLAGHATTA TOWN,
CHICKBALLAPUR -562 102.
6. GOVINDAPPA,
S/O LATE. POOJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
R/O SIDDARTHANAGAR,
A.K.COLONY,
SHIDLAGHATTA TOWN,
CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 102.
7. B.RAMAIAH,
SINCE DEAD BY L.RS,
7(a). ANJINAMMA,
W/O LATE. B. RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.
-3-
WP No. 3080 of 2014
7(b). B.R. BYATARAYAPPA
S/O LATE. B. RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
7(c). B.R. BALAKRISHNA,
S/O LATE. B. RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
7(d). B.R. NARAYANASWAMY,
S/O LATE B.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
7(e). B.R. ESHWARAIAH,
S/O LATE B.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
7(f). B.R. RAMACHANDRA,
S/O LATE B.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
7(g). B.R. MURTHY,
S/O LATE B.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
7(h). PARIMALA,
W/O ANANDA,
S/O LATE B.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
7(j). VARALAKSHMI,
W/O. GOPALA,
S/O LATE B.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
-4-
WP No. 3080 of 2014
7(k). MANJULA,
W/O RAMACHANDRA,
S/O LATE B.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
7(l). RAJESHWARI,
W/O. VENKATESH,
S/O LATE B.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
7(m). SARASWATHI,
W/O RAMESHA,
S/O LATE B.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NO.7(a) TO (m)
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
ULLURUPETE,
SHIDLAGHATTA TOWN,
CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3,
SRI. R. BHADRINATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6,
R7(a) TO R7(h) AND R7 (j) TO R7(m).
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED
ORDERS DTD.29.8.2011 PASSED IN CASE NO.PTCL(SHI)
232/2007-08 BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEX-A AND THE ORDER
DTD.27.11.2013 PASSED IN CASE NO.R.A./SCST/52/2011-12
BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEX-C.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
WP No. 3080 of 2014
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the purchaser feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner ordering for restoration of petition land and the order passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
2. 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.
1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC -6- WP No. 3080 of 2014
3. 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 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 3 (2018) 12 SCC 527 4 (2020) 14 SCC 236 -7- WP No. 3080 of 2014 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 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.
4. In the present case on hand, the petition land was granted to one Poojappa. The original grantee sold 2 acres of land in favour of Mohammed Hussain Sab on -8- WP No. 3080 of 2014 20.09.1965. The said Mohammed Hussain Sab in turn sold in favour of one Ramaiah under registered sale deed dated 01.12.1977. The said Ramaiah has sold 1 acre 20 guntas out of total extent measuring 2 acres in favour of one S.A.Ansar Pasha, that is petitioner herein, under registered sale deed dated 07.10.1996. The respondents No.4 to 6, who claim to be the children of the original grantee, initiated proceedings on 07.03.2008 under the PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner, after notifying the parties, has allowed the application and ordered for restoration and the said order is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. In the instance case, there is delay of 43 years.
5. In the present case on hand, there is a delay of 43 years in initiating action. The authorities below have not examined the delay and laches in moving the application. The judgments cited supra clearly indicates that on the ground of gross delay and laches, the application made by the grantee or by the legal heirs -9- WP No. 3080 of 2014 under Section 5 of the PTCL Act requires to be rejected. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment has held that where statute does not provide for limitation, the authorities and State must act consciously and if the process of invoking the provisions of statute is delayed and is initiated after long lapse of time, the delay by itself would act as an impediment. Thus, without exception and coming across various rules of law, the Apex Court has categorically stated the law in respect of exercise of power/jurisdiction under statute where no limitation is stipulated. The law on the point of delay and laches to invoke the provisions of PTCL Act is well settled by catena of judgments.
6. In the instant case, diligence is woefully lacking. There is a gross delay of 43 years in initiating action. Therefore, the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner was not justified in entertaining the application. The respondents No.4 to 6 are not entitled for restoration of the petition land as the material on record
- 10 -
WP No. 3080 of 2014also indicates that third party rights are created. The petitioner herein is the third purchaser.
7. The principles laid down by the Apex Court in Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav5 [(2018) 12 SCC 527] is also squarely applicable to the present case on hand. 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 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 5 (2018) 12 SCC 527
- 11 -
WP No. 3080 of 2014slept 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.
8. In the light of discussion made supra, I am of the view that respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner erred in entertaining a petition and further erred in ordering for restoration without taking cognizance of the fact that there is an inordinate delay of 43 years. The said order is confirmed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner. The order passed by respondent No.3- Assistant Commissioner runs contrary to the judgment and principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra. Therefore, the order of restoration passed by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure-A and the order passed by respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner confirming the order of respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-C are not sustainable. Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner ought to have rejected the petition as there was a gross
- 12 -
WP No. 3080 of 2014delay in seeking restoration of the land. For the reasons stated supra, the order passed by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner and the order passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner are liable to be quashed. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The order passed by the respondent
No.2/Deputy Commissioner vide
Annexure-A and the order passed by the
respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-C are hereby set aside.
Sd/-
JUDGE HDK