Karnataka High Court
Smt Pyari Ma vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 January, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.22426 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN
1. SMT PYARI MA
W/O. IMTIYAZ,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
2. SMT. PARVEEN TAJ
W/O. VAZIR SAB,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
3. SMT. SHAMEEMUNNISA
W/O. SALIM
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
ALL ARE R/AT NO. 2574,
WARD NO. 13, NEW BUS STAND ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA TOWN,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 562135 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.S.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)
2
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M. S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
V V TOWER, BENGALURU-560001
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION,
DODDABALLAPURA,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560203
4. THE TAHASILDAR
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
DAVANAHALLI,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562135
5. THE CHAIRMAN
COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF
UNAUTHORIZED CULTIVATION OCCUPATION,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562135
6. SRI. M S MUJEEB
S/O. SHAJAN SAB,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT WARD NO. 17,
KUBAH MASJID MOHALLA,
VIJAYAPURA TOWN,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562135 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN
REVISION PETITION NO. 22/2019, DATED 27.10.2021 VIDE
ANNEXURE-O AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner canceling the order of grant made in favour of the petitioners, way back in the year 1998. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner has been upheld by the Deputy Commissioner and thereafter the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Consequently, all the three orders are in challenge in this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially the committee for regularization had rejected the applications filed in Form No.50, in the year 1993. 4 Questioning the same, the petitioners herein had approached this Court in W.P.No.37533-37535/1993. This Court by order dated 13.12.1994 directed the committee to reconsider the applications filed by the petitioners seeking regularisation of their unauthorized occupation of agricultural lands. Consequently, the committee gave its approval and directed regularisation of the unauthroised occupation. Thereafter, the Tahasildar, Devanahalli issued Form No.7 granting the lands in favour of the petitioners herein. The learned counsel would submit that the revenue records were mutated and the petitioners are in authorized occupation of the lands in question and have been cultivated the land. However, at the instance of the 6th respondent herein, the Assistant Commissioner sought to initiate action for cancellation of the grant, by invoking the powers vested under Section 108D(6) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966.
5
3. It was contended on behalf of the 6th respondent that in terms of second proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, since the lands in question were situated within 5 k.m. radius from the boundaries of the City Municipal Council, Vijayapura, lands could not have been granted to the petitioners. The Assistant Commissioner sought for a report from the Tahsildar and on being satisfied that the lands in question were situated within the restricted distance as provided in the table under sub-section (4) of Section 94-A, proceeded to pass the impugned order canceling the grant made in favour of the petitioners. The learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner wherein, it is stated that although the respondents therein had entered appearance through the learned counsel, they have not filed any objections and not produced any documents in support of their case. The appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 49-B of 6 the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner upholding the findings of the Assistant Commissioner. Similarly, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal too dismissed the revision petition filed under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964. Consequently, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. Notice sent to the 6th respondent is awaited. Nevertheless, this Court is of the considered opinion that this being a case where the 6th respondent is only a complainant having no personal grievance in respect of the lands granted to the petitioners, his presence or absence in this case does not make any difference to him.
5. The learned AGA submits that this is a clear case where it is found that when there is a restriction placed in the provisions of law and lands fall within the restricted area, the lands could not have been granted contrary to the provisions of law. It is therefore the contention of the 7 learned AGA that no fault can be found in the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal. The learned AGA vehemently contends that since the interest of the State has to be protected, the validity of the grant made in favour of the petitioners should be considered strictly in accordance with the provisions of law.
6. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the lands having been granted way back in the year 1998, initiation of an action purportedly under Rule 108D(6) is permissible only within reasonable period.
7. Having heard the learned counsels and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that although there is no period of limitation prescribed either under Rule 108D(6) or for that matter Rule 108K for cancellation of the grant, it is by now well settled by a catena of decisions of 8 the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court that the exercise of power for recalling an order or cancellation of a grant made in favour of a person has to be exercised within a reasonable period. It this regard, it would be profitable to notice few decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. In MOHAMAD KAVI MOHAMAD AMIN /VS./ FATMABAI IBRAHIM - (1997) 6 SCC 71, it was held that suo motu powers have to be exercised within a reasonable time. In JOINT COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY DISTRICT /VS./ D.NARASING RAO AND OTHERS - (2015) 3 SCC 695, it was held in paragraph 25 as follows:
"The legal position is fairly well settled by a long line of decisions of this Court which have laid down that even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for the exercise of any power, revisional or otherwise, such power must be exercised within a reasonable period. This is so even in cases where allegations of fraud have necessitated the exercise of any corrective power. We may briefly refer to some of the 9 decisions only to bring home the point that the absence of a stipulated period of limitation makes little or no difference insofar as the exercise of the power is concerned which ought to be permissible only when the power is invoked within a reasonable period."
Even in respect of the revisional jurisdiction, it was held that delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainly in human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of third-party rights, that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary power especially when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or 10 transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity; for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an authority.
9. Having regard to the judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, when we examine the present case, we find that there is no explanation offered by the Assistant Commissioner as to why the action is initiated at the behest of the 6th respondent, who is totally unconcerned with the grant made in favour of the petitioners. Not a word is stated regarding the reason for initiation of action after a lapse of more than a decade. It was well within the knowledge of the committee and the Tahsildar who was empowered to issue the grant certificate that the lands were situated at the certain distance from the boundary of the City Municipal Council. The petitioners are in settled possession of the lands in question. It is 11 because of these reasons that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held time and again that if action is sought to be initiated either suo motu or in exercise of power conferred under a statute, they shall be done within the reasonable period. The 6th respondent herein has nothing to lose. It is clear from the materials available on record that the 6th respondent herein has no personal grievance. The authority should have considered all these aspects before venturing into canceling the grant certificate issued way back in the year 1998.
10. For the reasons stated above, this Court would proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 28.04.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-
M; order dated 27.09.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-N and the 12 order dated 27.10.2021 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revision Petition No.22/2019 at Annexure-O, are hereby quashed and set aside.
Ordered accordingly.
11. In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2022 does not survive for consideration and it is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KLY