Karnataka High Court
Sri K D Lingaraju S/O Late Doddaiah vs The Deputy Commissioner on 13 December, 2021
Bench: Ashok S.Kinagi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.7224 OF 2010 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K D LINGARAJU
S/O LATE DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
DODKODLI GRAMA , KODLIPET POST
SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 231.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KODAGU DISTRICT
MADIKERI-571 201.
2. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
MADIKERI SUB-DIVISION
KODAGU DISTRICT
MADIKERI-571 201.
3. SRI. K B NINGAIAH
S/O BASAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
DODKODLI GRAMA, KODLIPET POST
2
SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 231.
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
3(A) SMT. K.P. LEELAVATHI
W/O LATE K.B. NINGAIAH
MAJOR
3(B) NIVEDITA
D/O LATE K.B. NINGAIAH
MAJOR
3(C) SRI. INDRESH K.N.
S/O LATE K.B. INGAIAH
MAJOR
ALL 3(A) TO (C) ARE RESIDING AT
DODKODLI GRAMA, KODLIPET POST
SOMAWARPET TALUK
KODAGU - 571 231.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. SANDESH KUMAR, HTGP FOR R-1 AND R-2
SRI. CHANDRAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R 3(A-C)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DSTRD 3.3.08 PASSED BY THE R2
VIDE ANNEX-B AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 11.1.10 OF
THE R1 VIDE ANNEX-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioner being aggrieved by the order
dated 3.3.2008 passed by respondent No.2-Assistant
Commissioner vide Annexure-B and the order dated
11.1.2010 passed by respondent No.1-Deputy
Commissioner vide Annexure-A has filed the present
writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition
are as under:
The land in Sy.No.156/56 of Somwarpet Taluk to
an extent of 3 acres was granted in favour of
respondent No.3 on 29.2.1983. Respondent No.3 had
sold the land in favour of the petitioner under
registered sale deed dated 29.3.1989. The Tahsildar
has submitted a report to the Assistant Commissioner
vide report dated 26.9.2001 alleging that the sale
transaction is in violation of the provisions of the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain lands) Act 1978 (for
short 'the PTCL Act'). On the basis of the report
submitted by the Tahsildar, the Assistant
Commissioner has initiated proceedings under the
PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner after enquiry
allowed the application and declared that the
registered sale deed dated 29.3.1989 as null and void
and ordered to restore possession of the land in
favour of respondent No.3. The petitioner being
aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner, preferred an appeal before the Deputy
Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner vide order
dated 11.1.2010 dismissed the appeal filed by the
petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ
petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned
HCGP for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel
for respondent No.3.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the land was granted in favour of respondent
No.3 on 29.3.1983. He further submits that
respondent No.3 was working as a teacher and he had
sold the said land in favour of the petitioner under
registered sale deed dated 29.3.1989. He further
submits that on the report submitted by the Tahsildar,
the Assistant Commissioner has initiated proceedings
under the PTCL Act. The proceedings initiated by the
Assistant Commissioner is beyond reasonable time i.e.
after lapse of 12 years from the date of execution of
the registered sale deed. In order to buttress his
argument, he has placed reliance on the following
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in NEKKANTI
RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
ANOTHER reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 which is
further reiterated in the case of MR.VIVEK H
HINDUJA AND OTHERS v. MR. ASWATHA AND
OTHERS reported in (2020) 14 SCC 228. Hence, he
submits that the Assistant Commissioner ought to
have dropped the proceedings under the PTCL Act on
the ground of delay and laches. But on the contrary,
the Assistant Commissioner has allowed the
application and declared the sale deed as null and
void. On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner has
confirmed the order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner. Hence, he submits that the orders of
the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner are contrary to the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court and hence, on the grounds
prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent No.3 submits that the land in question was
a granted land and respondent No.3 belongs to
scheduled caste and that the sale is in violation of
Section 4 of the PTCL Act. He further submits that the
Assistant Commissioner was justified in declaring the
registered sale deed as null and void and the Deputy
Commissioner has rightly dismissed the appeal
preferred by the petitioner. There is no error in the
impugned orders and hence, on these grounds, he
prays to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Perused the records and considered the
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. The land in question was granted in favour of
respondent No.3 on 29.3.1983. Respondent No.3 had
sold the said land in favour of the petitioner under
registered sale deed dated 29.3.1989. On the
strength of the registered sale deed, the petitioner
approached the Tahsildar to effect mutation in the
name of the petitioner in respect of the land in
question. Respondent No.3 filed objections to the said
application. The Tahsildar on the basis of the
objection filed by respondent No.3 has submitted a
report that the sale is in violation of the PTCL Act. On
the strength of the report submitted by the Tahsildar,
the Assistant Commissioner has initiated proceedings
under the PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner
without considering the delay and laches has initiated
the proceedings under the PTCL Act, and has
proceeded to pass the order. Suo motu proceedings
has been initiated after lapse of more than 12 years
from the date of execution of the registered sale deed.
Thus there is a inordinate delay in initiating the
proceedings under the PTCL Act in view of the law laid
in paragraphs 8 and 10 the aforesaid judgments
respectively :
NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA &
ANR. [(2020) 14 SCC 232] [2018(6) KAR.L.J. 792
(SC)], [2018(1) KLR 5(SC)] CIVIL APPEAL
NO.1390/2009, DD.26.10.2017 (SC/ST - SECTION 5 OF
PTCL ACT)
"8. However, the question that arises is with
regard to terms of Section 5 of the Act which
enables any interested person to make an
application for having the transfer annulled as void
under Section 4 of the Act. This Section does not
prescribe any period within which such an
application can be made. Neither does it prescribe
the period within which suo motu action may be
taken. This Court in the case of CHHEDI LAL YADAV &
ORS. VS. HARI KISHORE YADAV (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.,
2017(6) SCALE 459 and also in the case of NINGAPPA
VS. DY. COMMISSIONER & ORS. (C.A.NO.3131 of 2007,
decided on 14.07.2011) reiterated a settled position
in law that whether Statute provided for a period of
limitation, provisions of the Statute must be invoked
within a reasonable time. It is held that action
whether on an application of the parties, or suo
motu, must be taken within a reasonable time. That
action arose under the provisions of a similar Act
which provided for restoration of certain lands to
farmers which were sold for arrears of rent or from
which they were ejected for arrears of land from 1st
January, 1939 to 31st December, 1950. This relief
was granted to the farmers due to flood in the Kosi
River which make agricultural operations impossible.
An application for restoration was made after 24
years and was allowed. It is in that background that
this Court upheld that it was unreasonable to do so.
We have no hesitation in upholding that the present
application for restoration of land made by
respondent-Rajappa was made after an
unreasonably long period and was liable to be
dismissed on that ground. Accordingly, the
judgments of the Karnataka High Court, namely, R.
RUDRAPPA VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, 2000 (1)
KARNATAKA LAW JOURNAL, 523, MADDURAPPA VS. STATE
OF KARNATAKA, 2006 (4) KARNATAKA LAW JOURNAL, 303
AND G. MAREGOUDA VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA AND ORS, 2000(2)
KR.L.J.SH. N.4B holding that there is no limitation
provided by Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, an
application can be made at any time, are overruled.
Order accordingly."
VIVEK M. HINDUJA & ORS. VS. M. ASHWATHA & ORS.
[(2020) 14 SCC 228]
"10. In PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION V. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA [(2007) 5 SCC 211] this court
reproduced the following observations with regard
to the declaration of orders beyond the period of
limitation as invalid: (SCC p.226, para 39)
"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'."
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the
proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable
time. The suo motu proceedings initiated by the
Assistant Commissioner is beyond reasonable time.
The Assistant Commissioner ought to have dropped
the proceedings on the ground of delay and laches, on
the contrary has passed an order. Further respondent
No.1-Deputy Commissioner without considering the
delay in initiating suo motu proceedings has
proceeded to confirm the order passed by the
Assistant Commissioner. The orders passed by the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner
are contrary to the laid down by the Apex Court in the
judgments supra.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the
following order is passed :
ORDER
The writ petition is allowed;
The impugned orders are hereby set
aside and quashed.
SD/-
JUDGE
rs
