Karnataka High Court
Halappa vs Deputy Commissioner & District ... on 12 June, 2023
Bench: Sachin Shankar Magadum
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:20015
WP No. 26795 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 26795 OF 2012 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
1. HALAPPA (DEAD) BY LRS:
(a) SHANTHAMMA,
D/O LATE. HALAPPA,
W/O LATE. HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT LINGAPURA VILLAGE,
SASVEHALLI HOBLI,
HONNALI TALUK,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 244.
2. DYAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
S/O LATE. GIDDA BHAVI,
RESIDING AT LINGAPURA VILLAGE,
SASVEHALLI HOBLI,
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN
N
HONNALI TALUK,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 244.
3. RAMAPPA (DEAD BY LRS:
(a) HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O. RAMAPPA,
RESIDING AT LINGAPURA VILLAGE,
HANAGAVADI POST, HONNALI TALUK,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 243.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:20015
WP No. 26795 of 2012
(b) NAGARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O. RAMAPPA,
RESIDING AT LINGAPURA VILLAGE,
HANAGAVADI POST,
HONNALI TALUK,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 243.
(c) RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O. RAMAPPA,
RESIDING AT LINGAPURA VILLAGE,
HANAGAVADI POST,
HONNALI TALUK,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 243.
(d) DYAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O. RAMAPPA,
RESIDING AT LINGAPURA VILLAGE,
HANAGAVADI POST,
HONNALI TALUK,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 243.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K. PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. RAJAGOPAL ASSOCIATES ADVOCATES FOR
PETITIONERS 1 (a) AND 3 (a) TO 3 (d))
AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER &
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
DAVANGERE - 577 001.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:20015
WP No. 26795 of 2012
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION,
DAVANGERE - 577 001.
3. TAHASILDAR,
HONNALI TALUK,
HONNALI - 577 217,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT.
4. SMT. REKHAMMA
W/O G.R. MARIGEPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT LINGAPURA VILLAGE,
HONNALI TALUK,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT.
5. SMT. ANNAPOORNAMMA,
W/O. HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NIMBEGONDI VILLAGE,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
6. SMT. G.R. PARVATHAMMA,
W/O. VEERESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KUNKOVA VILLAGE,
HONNALI TALUK,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATA SATHYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3,
SRI. R. GOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE
RECORDS LEADING TO THE ORDER DATED 30.10.10. QUASH
ORDER DATED 13.3.02 VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO THE WP PASSED
BY THE R2/ASST. COMMISSIONER AND THE CONFIRMATION
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:20015
WP No. 26795 of 2012
ORDER DATED 30.10.10 VIDE ANNEXURE-M TO THE WP
PASSED BY THE R1 / DY. AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the legal heirs
of the original grantee, who have questioned the order of
respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner, who has
rejected the petition seeking restoration of the petition
land and the same is confirmed by respondent
No.1/Deputy 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 another 1 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
(2020) 14 SCC 232
(2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC
NC: 2023:KHC:20015
WP No. 26795 of 2012
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
(2018) 12 SCC 527
(2020) 14 SCC 236
NC: 2023:KHC:20015
WP No. 26795 of 2012
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:20015
WP No. 26795 of 2012
4. In the instance case, the petition land was
granted to the petitioner's father, namely, Gidda Bhovi, in
1953-54 for a non-alienation period of 15 years. The
original grantee sold the petition land in question in favour
of father of respondents No.4 to 6 under registered sale
deed dated 28.05.1962. After coming into force of PTCL
Act, 1978, it appears that respondent No.2/Assistant
Commissioner initiated suo-moto proceedings. From the
records, it is bonafide that twice a matter came up for
consideration before the Division Bench of this Court and
on one occasion the matter was taken up to the Hon'ble
Apex Court. On both occasions, the Hon'ble Apex Court
and the Division Bench of this Court remitted the matter to
respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner. While the
Hon'ble Apex Court remitted the matter to the High Court
to reconsider whether the land is entitled to be restored to
the grantees family, this Court has remitted the matter on
two occasions. Therefore, this is a third round of litigation.
Respondent No.2/Assistant commissioner and respondent
No.1/Deputy Commissioner have declined to restore the
NC: 2023:KHC:20015
WP No. 26795 of 2012
land on the premise that the subsequent purchaser has
forfeited his right by way of adverse possession. Though
this finding is not sustainable, however, I am not inclined
to interfere with the order passed by respondent
No.2/Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.1/Deputy
Commissioner in the light of judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama
Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja. The Hon'ble Apex Court
in these two judgments had occasion to interpret the
concept of reasonable plea and does not prescribe
limitations to initiate action. Therefore, the order passed
by the authorities can be interfered with, provided the
orders are in contravention of judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra.
5. Both the authorities applied plea of adverse
possession and have declined to annul the sale deed and
restore the land in favour of the grantees family. Though
authorities have applied the principles of plea of adverse
possession, what can be gathered is that, on account of
NC: 2023:KHC:20015
WP No. 26795 of 2012
inordinate delay, the authorities were not inclined to
restore the petition land. The orders under challenge are
to be tested by this Court in the light of law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama
Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja. Admittedly, alienation is
of the year 1962, while suo-moto proceedings were
initiated by the authorities in 1985. Therefore, there is
inordinate delay of 23 years. If there is inordinate delay of
23 years, in the light of principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, the authorities should not venture into
entertaining petition seeking restoration. They are bound
to reject such petitions where there is inordinate delay. In
the present case on hand, the diligence on the part of
authorities or the grantee's family is found to be woefully
lacking. It is in this background, I am not inclined to
interfere with the orders passed by respondent
No.2/Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by
respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner. If sale is of the
year 1962, the authorities erred in initiating sue-moto
proceedings in 1985.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:20015
WP No. 26795 of 2012
6. The judgments cited supra clearly indicate that on
the ground of gross delay and laches, the application
made by the grantee or by the legal heirs under Section 5
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 laches to invoke the provisions of
PTCL Act is well settled by catena of judgments.
7. 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
petitioner seeking resumption and restoration of granted
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:20015
WP No. 26795 of 2012
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.
8. 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;
Sd/-
JUDGE
hdk
