Sri Rathnaiah vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 4173 Kant

                                         -1-
                                                NC: 2023:KHC:23738
                                                   WP No. 23766 of 2022




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

                                       BEFORE
                  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

                        WRIT PETITION NO.23766 OF 2022 (SC-ST)
             BETWEEN:

                   SRI.RATHNAIAH
                   S/O GURAPPA
                   AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
                   RESIDING AT
                   DIGUVACHINTHAPALLI VILLAGE
                   ROYALPAD HOBLI
                   SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
                   KOLAR DISTRICT

                                                           ...PETITIONER
             (BY SRI. S VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE)

             AND:
Digitally
signed by    1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
ALBHAGYA           REPRESENTED BY ITS
Location:          PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HIGH COURT
OF                 REVENUE DEPARTMENT
KARNATAKA          M.S. BUILDING
                   BENGALURU 560 001

             2.    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
                   KOLAR SUB DIVISION
                   KOLAR - 563 101

             3.    THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
                   KOLAR SUB DIVISION
                   KOLAR - 563 101
                              -2-
                                    NC: 2023:KHC:23738
                                       WP No. 23766 of 2022




4.   SRI. BYAPPA
     S/O LATE GUNGULAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
     RESIDING AT
     DIGUVACHINTHAPALLI VILLAGE
     ROYALPAD HOBLI
     SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
     KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135

                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R.1 TO R.3;
SRI.RAHUL S REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R.4)


      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 IN CASE NO.PTCL/15/2019 DTD
31.10.2022 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION
AND ETC.

      THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed by the grandson of

the original grantee feeling aggrieved by the order passed

by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure

- E, wherein respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner has

allowed appeal filed by respondent No.4 and set aside the

NC: 2023:KHC:23738 WP No. 23766 of 2022

order dated 14.06.2018 passed by respondent No.3 -

Assistant Commissioner.

2. In the instant case, on examining the Grant

Certificate, it is clearly evident that one Oblappa

participated in a public auction conducted by the

Competent Authority. In public auction, Oblappa

purchased the land by depositing the entire amount of

Rs.20/-. On depositing of auction price, the Authority has

issued a title document under Form No.1.

3. The controversy as to whether the document

styled as a Certificate of Grant would automatically fall

under the category of granted land for depressed classes

is dealt by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

B.K.Muniraju vs. State of Karnataka1. The Hon'ble

Apex Court, while dealing with the said controversy and

upholding the judgment of the High Court, held that,

merely because a document is styled as a certificate of

grant, that in itself will not lead to an inference that the

(2008) 4 SCC 451

NC: 2023:KHC:23738 WP No. 23766 of 2022

grant was intended for a depressed class. The Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of B.K.Muniraju held as under:

"The document in question has been styled as "certificate of grant". In order to know the real nature of the document, one has to look into the recitals of the document and not the title of the document. The intention is to be gathered from recitals in the deed, conduct of the parties and evidence on record. It is settled law that question of construction of a document is to be decided by finding out intention of the executant, firstly, from a comprehensive reading of the terms of the document itself, and then, by looking into, to the extent permissible, the prevailing circumstances which persuaded the author of the document to execute it. With a view to ascertain the nature of a transaction, the document has to be read as a whole. A sentence or term used may not be determinative of real nature of transaction."

4. In the light of findings recorded by Hon'ble Apex

Court cited supra, merely because the document is styled

as a certificate of grant, it cannot be presumed that the

land was granted in the category of depressed class.

Since Oblappa purchased the land in a public auction,

NC: 2023:KHC:23738 WP No. 23766 of 2022

merely because the Grant Certificate is issued under Form

No.1 that in itself will constitute the land as granted land.

If land in question is not a granted land, the Authorities

erred in entertaining a petition by invoking the provisions

of "PTCL Act". In the present case on hand, the provisions

of "PTCL Act" are not at all applicable in the light of the

law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited

judgment. Therefore, on this sole count, respondent No.3

- Assistant Commissioner ought to have rejected the

petition.

5. Be that as it may, there is a delay of 40 years in

seeking restoration. The sale is of the year 1971. The

petition is filed in the year 2011. Therefore, in the light of

law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and

another2 and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha3, the

respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner erred in

(2020) 14 SCC 232

(2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC

NC: 2023:KHC:23738 WP No. 23766 of 2022

entertaining a restoration petition ignoring inordinate

delay of 40 years.

6. In the present case on hand, there is a delay of

40 years in initiating action. The respondent No.3 -

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 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

NC: 2023:KHC:23738 WP No. 23766 of 2022

laches to invoke the provisions of PTCL Act is well settled

by catena of judgments.

7. The principles laid down by the Apex Court in

Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav4 [(2018)

12 SCC 527] is also squarely applicable to the present

case on hand. The restoration petition is also liable to be

rejected as there are series of transactions. The original

grantee sold the petition land under registered sale deed

dated 05.05.1971 to one Venkatarayappa. The said

Venkatarayappa, in turn, sold the petition land under

registered sale deed dated 10.06.1975 to one

Sri.Fakrusabi. The said Fakrusabi, in turn, sold the

petition land under registered sale deed dated 24.05.1982

to respondent No.4, who is the third purchaser. If the

property has changed hands, the legal heirs of original

grantee have slept over their rights and seeking

restoration, which would seriously prejudice the rights of

(2018) 12 SCC 527

NC: 2023:KHC:23738 WP No. 23766 of 2022

the bonafide purchasers. Even on this Count, the petition

is not maintainable.

8. 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. I am of

the view that respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner was

NC: 2023:KHC:23738 WP No. 23766 of 2022

justified in allowing the appeal and set-aside the

restoration order passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant

Commissioner and the same is accordance with law and is

strictly inconsonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex court in the above cited judgments. I do not find

any illegality in the order passed by respondent No.2 -

Deputy Commissioner.

9. In view of discussion made supra, I proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is devoid of merits

and accordingly, stands dismissed.

(ii) Pending applications, if any, are also

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NBM