Smt. Siddamuthamma vs The Deputy Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 3124 Kant

                              1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

                            BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

        WRIT PETITION NO. 18782 OF 2019(SC-ST)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. SIDDAMUTHAMMA
W/O LATE MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs.

1(a). SHRI.KRISHNAMURTHY,
S/O LATE SRI.MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

1(b). SMT.MUNIYAMMA,
W/O MAILARAPPA,
AGED 48 YEARS

1(c). SRI.MAHALINGARAJU,
S/O LATE MYLARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

1(a) TO 1(c) ARE RESIDING AT MACHOHALLI COLONY,
BAPA GRAMA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU-560091

2. ANJINAPPA @ ANJANAMURTHY
S/O LATE MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
                             2


3. KENCHAMALLAIAH
S/O LATE MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

4. MARAIAH
S/O LATE KENCHAMALLAIAH,
SINCE DEAD (DIED ON 10-09-2016 BY HIS LRS

4(a). KUMARA,
S/O MARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

5. SRI. ANJINAPPA
S/O MARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

6. SMT. MALAMMA
D/O MARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

7. SMT. BYLAMMA
D/O MARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

8. SMT. GOWRAMMA
D/O MARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

9. SMT. GANGAMALLAMMA
D/O MARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

10. SRI KUMARA
S/O MARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

11. SMT. NINGAMMA
D/O MYLARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
                             3


12. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA
S/O MYLARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

13. SMT. BYLANJINAPPA
S/O MYLARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

14. SMT MANGALAGOWRAMMA
D/O MYLARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

15. SMT LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

16. SRI M L JAGADISH
S/O LATE LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

17. SRI M L NAGARAJU
S/O LATE LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

18. SMT MANGALAGOWRI
D/O LATE LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

P1 TO 18 ARE R/A MACHOHALLI VILLAGE
BAPA GRAMA POST
DASANAPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560091

                                      ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.KISHAN G S, ADVOCATE)
                              4


AND:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT, K G ROAD
BENGALURU

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION,
BENGALURU

3. SRI LATE MARIYAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

3(a). SMT CHIKKATHAYAMMA
W/O LATE MARIYAPPA
AGED AOBUT 80 YEARS,
SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY HER LRs.
WHO ARE ALREADY RECORD

3(b). SRI C M CHANDREGOWDA
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

3(b)1. SMT K M LATHA
W/O LATE C M CHANDREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

3(b)2. SRI RAJATH
S/O LATE C M CHANDREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

3(b)3. PRAGATHI
D/O LATE C M CHANDREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

RESPONDENTS NO.3(a), 3(b)1 TO 3(b)3 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.53/1,
3RD MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
                             5


OPP: VAKKALIGARA SANHA HIGH SCHOOL
BENGALURU-91

3(c). SRI C M SHIVARAMU
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

3(d). PARAVATHAMMA
D/O LATE MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

3(e). LAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

3(f). NIRMALA
D/O LATE MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

3(g). TANUJA
D/O LATE MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

RESPONDENTS 3(c) TO 3(g) ARE
RESIDING AT CHIKKERE VILLAGE
CHANNAPATTANA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

4. SMT NAGARATHNAMMA
W/O SHIVANANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.170, 2ND MAIN,
7TH CROSS, S G KAVAL
KOTTIGEPALYA, BENGLAURU-91

5. SRI SANJEEVAIAH
S/O KEMPAHANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
                             6


RESIDING AT NO.52, RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA,
5TH CROSS, PAPIREDDYPALYA
NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-72

6. SMT B SUSHILAMMA B
W/O SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.837, SANJEEVINAGARA,
OMSHAKTHI TEMPLE, 1ST MAIN,
HEGGANAHALLI CROSS, BENGALURU-91

7. SMT KRISHNAVENI
W/O RAVINDRA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.11/107, 5TH CROSS,
GANESHA BLOCK, NANDHINI LAYOUT
BENGALURU-96

8. SRI S NAGAIAH
S/O NAGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT S.BEDARAHALLI
KALLUDEVANAHALLI POST, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

9. SRI S N GIRISHKUMAR
S/O S M NAGASUNDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.24, 17TH CROSS,
MUNESHWARANAGARA, ULLAL MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-56

10. SMT C H INDRAMMA
W/O M B RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.401, 6TH CROSS,
50 FEET ROAD, CHOWDESHWARINAGARA
LAGGERE, BENGALURU
                              7



11. SRI BETTEGOWDA
S/O THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT S.BEDARAHALLI,
KALLUDEVANAHALLI POST,
MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISRICT

12. SMT RAMA
W/O RAGHAVENDRA RAO
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.15, 1ST FLOOR,
4TH MODULE HOUSE STREET,
BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-04

13. SRI N SHIVAKUMAR
S/O C K NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.19, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
SVG NAGARA NAGARABHAVI ROAD
MUDALAPALYA, BENGLAURU-72

14. SRI JAYANNA
S/O SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.3, 6TH CROSS, A D HALLI
MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-79

15. SMT JAYAMMA
W/O RAMAKRISHNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.08, 1ST MAIN, 5TH B CROSS,
SRINIVASANAGARA, SUNKADAKATTE
BENGALURU-91

16. SMT LALITHAMMA
W/O RANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.153, 1ST CROSS, 4TH BLOCK,
                             8


D GROUP, ANDRAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-91

17. SMT MANJAMMA
W/O CHALUVARANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.153, 1ST CROSS, 4TH BLOCK
D GROUP, ANDHRAHALLI MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU-91

18. SRI K S DIVAKARA
S/O SRINIVASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.648, BEST CLUB BEML LAYOUT,
4TH STAGE, R R NAGAR,
MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU-98

19. SMT N D BABY
W/O NAGESH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.2982, 13A MAIN,
RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA
BENGALURU-40

20. SRI A M DINESH
S/O MARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1329/A 27TH MAIN,
22ND CROSS, S G KAVAL,
D GROUP LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI
2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-91

21. SRI N NENGEGOWDA
S/O V NARASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.5 RAJIVGANDHINAGAR,
HANUMANTHANAGAR MAIN ROAD,
SUNKADAKATTE, KEBBEHALLA
BENGALURU-91
                             9


22. SRI P SUDHAKAR
S/O RAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.22/B, GROUND FLOOR,
5TH CROSS, ARUNACHALA LAYOUT,
PAPIREDDYPALYA, NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-72

23. SMT MANJULA
W/O BALAJI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.10, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS
JAYALAKSHMI LAYOUT, PAPIREDDY PLAYA
NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-72

24. SRI P UPENDRA
S/O PADMANABHARAO
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.10, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS
JAYALAKSHMI LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA
NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-72

25. SRI H VENKATESH
S/O RAMACHANDRA RAO
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.22/A, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS
ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA
NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-72

26. SRI K NAGARAJ
S/O K RAMAKRISHNARAO
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.22/A , GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS,
ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA
NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-72
                            10


27. SRI D ANANTHA
S/O D SURESH
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.22/A, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS
ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA
NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-72

28. SRI H LAKSHMINARASIMHA,
S/O H RAMARAO
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.22/A, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS
ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA
NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-72

29. SRI K VASUDHA
W/O K.VASRAJ,
AGED AOBUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.22/B, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS,
ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA,
NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-72.

30. SRI SUHAS
S/O ACHYUTHKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.22/B, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS,
ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA,
NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-72.

31. SRI ACHYUTHKUMAR
S/O KRISHNA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.22/B, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS,
ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA
NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-72
                              11


32. SRI K GURURAJ
S/O K.SHAMASUNDAR,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.22/B, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS,
ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA
NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-72

33. SRI K RAVINDRA
S/O K.SHAMASUNDAR,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.22/B, GROUND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS,
ARUNACHALA LAYOUT, PAPIREDDYPALYA
NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-72

34. SRI VENKATESH
S/O NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 43 YARS,
RESIDING AT NO.22 PADMANABHA NILAYA,
NEAR SIDDARTHA SCHOOL,
NAGASANDRA POST,
BENGALURU-73.

35. SMT VIJAYALAKSHMI
S/O NATARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.57,1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
MAHADESHWARANAGARA,
HEROHALLI CROSS, BENGALURU-91.

36. SMT PARVATHI
W/O SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.61/C, 2ND MAIN CROSS,
VIDYARANYANAGARA,
BENGALURU-23
                              12


37. SMT V KALAIARASI
W/O VENKATARAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.119, 4TH CROSS,
MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-23

38. SMT NINGAMMA
W/O JAYARAMU,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GIRISH PROVISION STORE,
6TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN,
RAGHAVENDRA SCHOOL ROAD,
BENGALURU-79.

39. SRI G RAVEESH
S/O LATE GATTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDITN AT NO.56, 1ST A MAIN,
LATHA ENGENEERING WORKS,
KOTTIGEPALYA, BENGALURU-91.
(LRs OF DECEASED GATTAPPA).

40. SMT R MANGALA
W/O M.S. LAKSHMANA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.45, 4TH CROSS,
S.G.KAVAL, SUNKADAKATTE,
BENGALURU-91.

41. SMT NEELAMMA
W/O PARAMESHWARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.73, 5TH CROSS,
S.G.KAVAL, S.G.KATTE,
CHANDRASHEKAR LAYOUT,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-91

42. SMT SAROJAMMA
W/O BASAVARAJAPPA,
                               13


AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.73, 5TH CROSS,
S.G.KAVAL, S.G.KATTE,
CHANDRASHEKAR LAYOUT,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-91.

43. SMT SHUBHA
W/O ADARSHA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.139, 3RD MAIN INCOME TAX LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-40

44. SRI K B GUDINAVAR
S/O BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.9/7, 3RD CROSS,
MRS LAYOUT, SUNKADAKATTE
BENGALURU-91.

45. SMT S N NAGAMANI
W/O R.C.SARASIJ,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.14, GROUND FLOOR,
MATRIX ABACUS BUILDING,
SBI BANK ROAD, DWARAKANGAR,
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-40

                                               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.K.S.ARUN, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SRI.V.SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R3(a), R3(b)(i TO iii), R3(c) TO
R3(g); SRI.G.R.RAVEESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R13, R14, R15
TO R43, R44 & R45; SRI.VENKATESH.G, ADVOCATE FOR
PROPOSED R46 IN I.A.4/21; R3B(i) TO B(iii) ARE TREATED AS LRs
OF DECEASED R3(a))

    THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON
                                      14


THE FILE OF THE R-1 IN SCST (APPEAL) NO.58/2014-15 AND
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 IN
SC.ST(APPEAL)NO.58/2014-15 DATED 22.03.2019 (ANNEXURE-J)
AND THERE BY RESTORE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 IN
K.SC.ST.NO.80/2011-12  DATED   05.07.2014  (ANNEXURE-D).

    THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 14.07.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                                  ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed by the grantee questioning

the order of the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner who has

allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the 2nd

respondent-Assistant Commissioner ordering restoration of land in

favour of the grantee.

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 5.4.2021.

(2020) 14 SCC 232

2.(2019) 1 Kant LJ 819(SC)

The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi's

case 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 [(2020)

14 SCC 236] was pleased to reiterate the settled position of law

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 to 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

(2018) 12 SCC 527

(2020) 14 SCC 236

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 was pleased to rely on the

judgment of the Apex Court in Ningappa .vs. Deputy

Commissioner and others wherein 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.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the principles

laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja(supra) have no application to the

present case on hand since the principles laid down therein are in

respect of alienations before commencement of the Act whereas in

the present case on hand the alienations are subsequent to

commencement of the PTCL Act. Further, placing reliance on para

24 of the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of Apex

Court in the case of Manchegowda .vs. State of Karnataka5,

the learned counsel submits that the Apex Court has held that the

granted lands transferred before commencement of Act and not in

contravention of prohibition on transfer are clearly beyond the

scope and purview. Therefore, he would contend that the Act has

application only in those cases where transferees of the granted

land have perfected their title but the same would not cover those

cases where transferee has a voidable title after the

commencement of the Act. Further placing reliance on the

judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of The Punjab

University, Chandigarh vs. Vijay Singh Lamba and others6 the

learned counsel would vehemently argue and contend that the

Court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as

to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the

decision on which reliance is placed and therefore, submits that the

Courts while examining an application filed by the grantee seeking

(1984) 3 SCC 301

(1976) 3 SCC 344

restoration of the lands has to apply law by looking into the facts

and circumstances of the case. To buttress his arguments that the

principles laid down by the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama

Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja have no relevance would further

place reliance on the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of the

Apex Court rendered in the case of Union of India and others

.vs. Dhanwanti Devi and others7 and contend that everything

which is said by a Judge while rendering a judgment will not

constitute a precedent. The only thing in a judge's decision which

would be binding a party is the principle upon which the case is

decided and therefore, he would request this Court to analyse the

ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama

Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja before applying the said principles

to the present case on hand. Placing reliance on the judgment of

the Apex Court rendered in Ambika Quarry Works .vs. State of

Gujarat and others8 he would contend that the ratio of any

decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that

case. Learned counsel also relied on a judgment rendered by the

Apex Court in the case of Quarry Owners' Association .vs. State

(1996) 6 SCC 44

(1987) 1 SCC 213

of Bihar and others9 and has contended that whenever there are

two possible interpretations, its true meaning and legislature's

intent has to be gathered from the Preamble, from the statement of

objections and reasons and other provisions of the same statute.

At this juncture, he would take this Court to the preamble of the

PTCL Act 1979. He would also place reliance on the judgment

rendered by the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority

.vs. M.K.Gupta10 and contend that PTCL Act has to be construed in

favour of the grantee to achieve the purpose of enactment as it is a

social oriented legislation. He would contend that the primary duty

of the Court while construing such an Act is to adopt a constructive

approach subject to that it should not do violence to the provisions

and should not be contrary to the object of the enactment. The

learned counsel would lastly place reliance on the judgment of this

Court rendered in D.V. Lakshmana Rao .vs. State of Karnataka

and others11 and submit that the principles laid down by the

Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Manchegowda's case has a

binding precedent and therefore, this Court is bound by the ratio

(2000) 8 SCC 655

(1994) 1 SCC 243

ILR 2001 KAR 2689

laid down by the Full Bench and the same would prevail over the

recent judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of

Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja. On these set of

grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

order passed by the 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner is not in

consonance with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in

Manchegowda's case and therefore, the order suffers from serious

infirmities and would warrant interference at the hands of this

Court.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the transferee would

however, support the order under challenge and would submit that

the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti

Rama Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja(supra) is being

consistently followed by this Court and in cases where action is

initiated by the grantee beyond reasonable period, this Court has

taken a consistent view that the application is not maintainable.

Therefore, the order under challenge is in accordance with law and

would not warrant any interference by this Court.

5. In the present case on hand, the authorities granted the

petition land in favour of Hanuma s/o. Kenchemallaiah somewhere

in the year 1931. After the demise of the original grantee, the

petition property devolved upon his only son Kenchemallaiah. After

the death of Kenchamallaiah, his four sons succeeded to the

petition property. From the records, it is forthcoming that the

grand children of the original grantee sold the petition property in

favour of Kamallamma under two registered sale deeds dated

4.11.1991 and 5.4.1994. In turn, the said Kamalamma sold the

property in favour of Mariyappa through registered sale deed that

30.10.1996. The great grand children of the original grantee filed

an application seeking restoration of lands in the year 2011. The

2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner declared the sale deeds of

the year 1991, 1994 and 1996 as void and consequently ordered

for restoration of lands in favour of the L.Rs of original grantee.

Being aggrieved by the same, the purchaser preferred an appeal

before the 2nd respondent who has allowed the appeal and set aside

the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner.

The first respondent-Deputy Commissioner relied on the judgment

of this Court rendered in W.P.24501/2012 where there was a delay

of 11 years and this Court has set aside the orders passed by the

authorities on the ground that the grantees had not approached the

Court within a reasonable period. The 1st respondent-Deputy

Commissioner was of the view that the application filed under the

PTCL Act for restoration of land was after 17 years and therefore,

the application which is filed beyond reasonable period is not

maintainable.

6. The contention of the petitioners before this Court is

that the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama

Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja(supra) have no application to the

present case on hand since in those cases the Apex Court was

dealing with alienations before commencement of the Act. This

Court is unable to accede to the said contention. The Apex Court

was dealing with the question of reasonable time and the Apex

Court reiterating the principles laid down in Chhedi Lal Yadav's

case was of the view that where statute does not provide for period

of limitation, the provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a

reasonable time and that the action whether on an application of

the parties or suo motu must be taken within a reasonable time.

This Court would also find that the Apex Court has also placed

reliance on the observations made by the Apex Court in Manche

Gowda's case. The Apex Court in the case of Vivek Hinduja

referred to the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Board of

Trustees of Port of Kandla vs. Hargovind Jasraj and

another(supra) and has culled out an oft-quoted passage in

Smith .vs. East Elloe Rural District Council12 which reads as

under:

"....An order, even if not made in good faith, is still an act capable of legal consequences. It bears no brand of invalidity on its forehead. Unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable or orders.' (Smith Case, AC pp.769-70).

(emphasis supplied)

This must be equally true even where the brand of invalidity is plainly visible; for there also the order can effectively be resisted in law only by obtaining the decision of the Court. The necessity of recourse to the court has been pointed out(sic) repeatedly in the House of Lords and Privy council without distinction between patent and latent defects (Ed.Wade and Forsyth in Administrative Law, 7th Edn.1994."

1956 AC 736: (1956) 2 WLR 888

What emerges from the judgments rendered by the Apex

Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek M.

Hinduja(supra) is that the Apex Court has laid down doctrine of

reasonable period. In both the cases, the principle was in regard to

reasonable period within which a grantee on an application or the

authority suo motu are required to initiate action against alienations

of granted land. Therefore, the principles laid down by the Apex

Court was that since no time is prescribed by law for taking such

action, the grantee must exercise the powers and seek annulment

of alienations within a reasonable period. Therefore, the broader

principle laid down by the Court was that the action has to be

brought within a reasonable period. Therefore, in both the cases,

the Apex Court was not directly dealing with alienations before the

commencement of the Act. Incidentally, the facts in those cases

were in respect of alienations before the commencement of the Act.

Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel that

facts are not similar and the judgments rendered by the Apex

Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek M.

Hinduja(supra) would only deal with alienations before

commencement of the PTCL Act is misconceived and therefore such

an argument cannot be accepted.

7. Therefore, the judgments cited by the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners in the case of Ambika Quarry Works

and Union of India vs. Dhanwanti Devi (supra) would not come

to the aid of the petitioners. On the contrary they come to the aid

of the respondent-transferee. The Apex Court in the case of Union

of India vs. Dhanwanti Devi (supra)has held that it is not

everything said by a Judge while giving judgment that constitutes a

precedent. The only thing in a Judge's decision binding a party is

the principle upon which the case is decided. The Apex Court in the

case of Ambika Quarry Works (supra) was of the view that the

ratio of the decision must be understood in the facts of the case.

Therefore, the principle laid down by Apex Court in the case of

Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja(supra) lays

down the proposition of doctrine of reasonable period. The test of

reasonable period has to be applied to each case where grantee

seeks restoration of the lands. Therefore, to apply the test of

reasonableness all that is required to be examined by the

authorities is to ascertain the date of alienation by the grantee or

the legal representatives of the grantee and the date on which an

application is filed seeking restoration of land. Therefore, this Court

would find it difficult to accept the arguments canvassed by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that the facts in the case of

Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja(supra) are

totally different and that the law was laid down in a totally different

context.

8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

W.P.No.50446/2012 declined to entertain an application filed after

nine years which is confirmed in WA.No.16/2021. Therefore, the

principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments cited supra

and the judgment rendered by the Division Bench are squarely

applicable to the present case on hand. The order passed by the

Deputy Commissioner setting aside the order passed by the

Assistant Commissioner is in consonance with the principles laid

down by the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek

M. Hinduja(supra). Therefore the order does not suffer from any

illegality or infirmity.

9. Hence, the following:

ORDER

The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly,

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

*alb/-