Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by Basavaradhya challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, dated 21.10.2015, which directed the resumption of land bearing Sy.No.162 to the government on the ground that the original grantee violated the non-alienation condition. The land was initially granted temporarily in 1945-46 to one Sreeramaiah and confirmed on 29.03.1956 with a ten-year non-alienation clause. Sreeramaiah sold it to Chikka Mandappa on 01.10.1960, before the expiry of the period. The land changed hands several times, ultimately being purchased by Reve Gowda (father of the petitioner) on 24.12.1965. Revenue entries were mutated accordingly. Respondents 4 and 5, claiming to be grandsons of the original grantee, filed multiple proceedings challenging the mutations and sale deeds, which were dismissed or withdrawn. Respondent 4 eventually filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Sections 49 and 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, which resulted in the impugned order. The petitioner contended that the Deputy Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by acting after 55 years, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District v. D. Narsing Rao. The High Court, allowing the writ petition, held that even if no limitation is prescribed for suo motu or revisional powers, they must be exercised within a reasonable time. The Deputy Commissioner's order, passed after five decades without any justification, was arbitrary and unsustainable. The court set aside the order and dismissed the revenue appeal.
Headnote
A) Revenue Law - Exercise of Revisional Power - Limitation and Delay - Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, Sections 49, 136(3) - The court considered whether the Deputy Commissioner could set aside a sale deed executed 55 years ago for violation of a non-alienation condition imposed during a grant in 1955-56. The petitioner argued that even though no limitation is prescribed, the power must be exercised within a reasonable time. Relying on Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District v. D. Narsing Rao (2015) 3 SCC 695, the court held that inordinate delay in exercising suo motu or revisional jurisdiction renders the action arbitrary and in violation of rule of law. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed and the appeal dismissed. (Paras 4-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Deputy Commissioner had the power to set aside a 55-year-old sale deed based on violation of non-alienation condition, when the proceedings were initiated after inordinate delay?
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 21.10.2015 passed by Deputy Commissioner in R.A.No.57/2013-14 set aside; R.A.No.57/2013-14 dismissed.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Quasi-judicial authorities must exercise revisional or suo motu powers within a reasonable time despite absence of statutory limitation
- inordinate and unexplained delay in invoking jurisdiction renders the action arbitrary
- fraudulent upon statute
- and opposed to rule of law
- power under Section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act
- 1964 to set aside sale deed cannot be exercised after 55 years.
Case Details
2017 LawText (KAR) (07) 3
W.P. No. 56839/2015 (KLR-RR/SUR)
A. Madhusudhana Rao, Pramodini Kishan, Neeraja Karanth, L.M. Ramaiah Gowda
Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub Division, Tahsildar, Kolar Taluk, K.R. Manjunath, K.R. Narayanaswamy, Prema Devi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of Deputy Commissioner setting aside sale deed and directing resumption of land to government for violation of non-alienation condition in a grant made in 1955-56.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 21.10.2015 in R.A. No. 57/2013-14.
Filing Reason
The Deputy Commissioner, on appeal by respondent No.4, set aside a sale deed executed in 1960 alleging violation of non-alienation clause, directing land to be resumed to government after 55 years, which the petitioner contended was beyond jurisdiction and unreasonable.
Previous Decisions
Respondent No.5's mutation appeal (R.A.417/2011-12) dismissed as withdrawn on 08.05.2012; his appeal against sale deeds (L.N.D.R.U.O.(A)7/2010-11) dismissed on 30.05.2013; Respondent No.4's mutation appeal (R.A.417/2010-11) dismissed on 20.12.2013; impugned order in R.A.57/2013-14 passed on 21.10.2015 by Deputy Commissioner.
Issues
Whether the Deputy Commissioner had the power to set aside a sale deed executed 55 years ago on the ground of violation of non-alienation condition, when the proceedings were initiated after inordinate delay?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Deputy Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction by entertaining appeal under Sections 49 and 136 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 after inordinate delay, as the grant was in 1955-56 and first sale in 1960; power must be exercised within reasonable time as per Supreme Court ruling in Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District v. D. Narsing Rao; petitioner's father was a bonafide purchaser in 1965 and family cultivated the land.
Respondent No.4 supported the Deputy Commissioner's order; Government Advocate also supported the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi
Even where no limitation period is prescribed, quasi-judicial authorities must exercise their revisional or suo motu powers within a reasonable time. Inordinate and unexplained delay in invoking jurisdiction renders the action arbitrary, fraudulent upon the statute, and opposed to the rule of law. The Deputy Commissioner cannot set aside a sale deed after 55 years on the ground of violation of grant conditions.
Judgment Excerpts
the Deputy Commissioner has no power to go into the legality or correctness of the validity of the sale deed executed way back in the year 1960.
such power cannot be exercised after decades even where the authority was empowered to exercise suo motu power for which no limitation under law is prescribed.
Even assuming that the Deputy Commissioner, in the instant case, has exercised his power under Section 136(3) of the Act at the instance of 4th respondent, such power cannot be exercised after lapse of 5 decades and more.
Procedural History
Grant confirmed on 29.03.1956; sale deed executed on 01.10.1960; subsequent transfers; mutation in father's name M.R.No.17/1965-66; petitioner's mutation M.R.No.16/99-2000; Respondent No.5 appeals dismissed/withdrawn in 2012; Respondent No.5 appeal against sale deeds dismissed on 30.05.2013; Respondent No.4 mutation appeal dismissed on 20.12.2013; R.A.No.57/2013-14 filed before Deputy Commissioner; impugned order dated 21.10.2015; writ petition filed; decision on 01.07.2017.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964: 49, 136(3)
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
