Karnataka High Court
Smt Munirathnamma vs State Of Karnataka on 25 July, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:25757
WP No. 21747 of 2021
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. 21747 OF 2021 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.MUNIRATHNAMMA
D/O DODDA UTHANELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
2. SRI ANJINAPPA
S/O DODDA UTHANELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
3. SRI RAJANNA
S/O DODDA UTHANELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
4. SRI JAYARAM
Digitally
S/O DODDA UTHANELLAPPA
signed by
ALBHAGYA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
Location:
HIGH ALL ARE RESIDING AT
COURT OF NO.139, BYAYAPPANAHALLI
KARNATAKA VIRGO NAGAR POST
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU-560049
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR H, ADVOCATE)
AND:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:25757
WP No. 21747 of 2021
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
KANDAYA BHAVAN
K G ROAD
BENGALURU - 560009
3. SRI.DODDA UTHANELLAPPA
S/O LATE DASSAPPA
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.139
BYAYAPPANAHALLI
VIRGO NAGAR POST
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU-560049
4. SRI P VEERAPPA
S/O PONNUSWAMAPPA
MAJOR
R/AT NO.13, SETHURAM STREET
BENGALURU
5. SRI N MADDAPPA
S/O M NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/AT NO.1649
NAGAPPA BLOCK
BENGALURU-560021
6. SMT PREMA KUMARI
D/O CHANNA DASAPPA
W/O K G MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/AT NO.27/34, NANDI DURGA ROAD
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:25757
WP No. 21747 of 2021
JAYAMAHAL
BENGALURU-560046
7. SMT.LAKSHMI RAMAKRISHNAN
W/O RAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
R/AT NO.87, 11TH CROSS
INDIRA NAGAR, 1ST STAGE
BENGALURU-560038
8. SRI J SHANKAR
S/O LATE THIMMAPOOJARI
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
9. SMT.SHARADA SHANKAR
W/O J SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
10. SRI S S NARESH KUMAR
S/O J SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
11. SRI S S MANOJ KUMAR
S/O J SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
12. SRI S S ANIL KUMAR
S/O J SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.8 TO 12
ALL RESIDING AT
LAKSHMI NILAYAM
BEJAI CHURCH ROAD
BENGALURU-560004
13. SRI PRASHANATH
S/O D VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:25757
WP No. 21747 of 2021
R/AT NO.66, 3RD CROSS
LALBAGH ROAD
BENGALURU-560027
14. SMT.LAKSHMI
W/O LATE SUBRAMANI
D/O DORAI SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT NO.15, 11TH CROSS
5TH MAIN, JAYAMAHAL
BENGALURU-560046
15. SRI D.VENKATESH
S/O LATE DORAI SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
R/AT NO.66, 3RD CROSS
LALBAGH ROAD
BENGALURU-560027
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R.1 AND R.2;
SRI.CN.NKESHAVA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.15)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 29.09.2020 (29TH SEPTEMBER 2020) MADE BY THE
TRIBUNAL COURT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN
DISTRICT AT BENGALURU IN SC.ST (APPEAL) NO.32/2016-17 FILED
UNDER SECTION 5(A) OF KARNATAKA SCHEDULED CASTE AND
SCHEDULED TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN
LANDS) ACT 1978 THE ORDER IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS
ANNX-B AND ETC.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:25757
WP No. 21747 of 2021
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the grand children of original grantee feeling aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-B, wherein respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner has allowed the application filed by respondent No.15 and set aside the order dated 29.04.2016 passed by 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 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC -6- NC: 2023:KHC:25757 WP No. 21747 of 2021 by the Division Bench in W.A.No.16/2021 disposed of on 05.04.2021.
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 3 (2018) 12 SCC 527 4 (2020) 14 SCC 236 -7- NC: 2023:KHC:25757 WP No. 21747 of 2021 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 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. -8-
NC: 2023:KHC:25757 WP No. 21747 of 2021
4. In the present case on hand, the petition land was granted to one Dasappa, who is the grandfather of the petitioners, on 11.11.1937. The father of the petitioners himself sold the petition land in favour of Dodda Muninanjappa under registered sale deed dated 04.03.1957. Thereafter, the 1st purchaser namely Dodda Muninanjappa sold the petition land in favour of one P.Veerappa under registered sale deed dated 11.04.1996. The said P.Veerappa, in turn, sold the petition land in favour of N.Madappa under registered sale deed dated 23.12.1968. The said N.Madappa, in turn, sold the petition land in favour of Smt.Premakumari under registered sale deed dated 31.08.1978. The said Smt.Premakumari, in turn, sold the petition land in favour of Smt.Lakshmi Ramakrishnan under registered sale deed dated 15.12.1989. The said Smt.Lakshmi Ramakrishnan, in turn, sold the petition land in favour of several persons under registered sale deed dated 19.03.1993. The petitioners who claim to be the grandchildren of original grantee initiated action by filing an application under -9- NC: 2023:KHC:25757 WP No. 21747 of 2021 Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner has allowed the application and ordered for restoration on the ground that alienation contravenes the provisions of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. Being aggrieved by the order of Assistant Commissioner, respondent No.15 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner - Respondent No.2. The Deputy Commissioner - Respondent No.2 has allowed the appeal and set-aside the order of restoration passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
5. In the present case on hand, there is a delay of 57 years in initiating action. The Assistant Commissioner has 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 under Section 5(2) 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
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25757 WP No. 21747 of 2021 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 present case on hand, I would find that the action is grossly delayed and taken beyond reasonable time. In that view of the matter, the application filed by petitioners seeking resumption and restoration of granted land on the ground that the transfer is in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act is not at all maintainable since the same is not filed within a reasonable period. The order passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner is strictly inconsonance wit the law laid down by the Ho'ble
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25757 WP No. 21747 of 2021 Apex Court in the above cited judgments. I do not find any infirmities in the order under challenge.
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 as there are series of transactions. Respondent No.15 is the 7th purchaser. The father of the petitioners himself sold the petition land in favour of Dodda Muninanjappa under registered sale deed dated 04.03.1957. Thereafter, the 1st purchaser namely Dodda Muninanjappa sold the petition land in favour of one P.Veerappa under registered sale deed dated 11.04.1996. The said P.Veerappa, in turn, sold the petition land in favour of N.Madappa under registered sale deed dated 23.12.1968. The said N.Madappa, in turn, sold the petition land in favour of Smt.Premakumari under registered sale deed dated 31.08.1978. The said Smt.Premakumari, in turn, sold the petition land in favour of Smt.Lakshmi 5 (2018) 12 SCC 527
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25757 WP No. 21747 of 2021 Ramakrishnan under registered sale deed dated 15.12.1989. The said Smt.Lakshmi Ramakrishnan, in turn, sold the petition land in favour of several persons under registered sale deed dated 19.03.1993. 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 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.
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25757 WP No. 21747 of 2021
8. The property has changed several hands as indicated in the preceding paragraph. Therefore, the property has changed several hands under registered documents. The legal heirs of original grantee after lapse of 57 years are not entitled to seek restoration as third party rights are created and on account of passage of time, the rights of subsequent purchasers has stood crystallized and therefore, rights which had accrued and vested with the subsequent purchasers cannot be set at naught by exercising the power under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. These significant details are not at all taken into consideration by Assistant Commissioner. The order passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner is strictly inconsonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, I do not find any infirmities in the order under challenge.
9. In view of discussion made supra, I proceed to pass the following:
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:25757 WP No. 21747 of 2021 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.: 3