YALLAGAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-Division in case No.P.T.C.L.SR.(NE) 26/2007-08 seeking cancellation of the sale deed and for restoration of the land in question in his favour. The said petition came to be allowed vide order dtd. 17/1/2011. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, respondent No.4 approached the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District in case No.LND.SC.ST(A)72/2010-11. The Deputy Commissioner, by the order dtd. 20/1/2015, confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Challenging the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, respondent No.4 filed a writ petition before this Court on the ground that the proceedings initiated by the appellant was beyond the prescribed time limit. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the proceedings initiated by the appellant before the Assistant Commissioner was in the year 2007 i.e., after a lapse of 12 years from the date of execution of the sale deed and therefore, the Assistant Commissioner ought not to have entertained the petition in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another,(2020) 14 SCC 232. and consequently, held that the Deputy Commissioner has also committed an error in confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Accordingly, by the order dtd. 27/10/2022, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.4 and set aside the orders passed by both the authorities. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed this writ appeal.

(2.) The sole ground pressed into service by the learned counsel for the appellant is that both the authorities have passed the orders in favour of the appellant considering the material on record. He vehemently submitted that since the application for restoration of the land was filed before the Assistant Commissioner way back in the year 2003, the proceedings initiated by the appellant was well within the time limit. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed a serious error in treating that the petition was filed after a lapse of 12 years from the date of execution of the sale deed. The learned counsel also invited our attention to Annexure-R4 and contended that the said document shows that the application for restoration of land was initially submitted in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub- Division in the year 2003 and therefore, it was well within the time limit.

(3.) On this limited compass, we have considered the case of the appellant. A perusal of the record shows that proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Division in the year 2007 which came to be numbered as PTCL.SR(NE) 26/2007-08. However, there is no mention in the order of the Assistant Commissioner that the appellant had initially filed an application in the office of the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2003. There is also nothing on record to show that the said application was accepted in the office of the Assistant Commissioner. It is a common knowledge that if an application is submitted to a Revenue Authority or a Quasi Judicial Authority, as the case may be, at least, there would be an entry to that effect in the inward register book. The learned counsel for the appellant made an attempt to submit that there is a signature found at the end of the application and date is also mentioned therein as 2/12/2022. On a perusal of Annexure-R.4, it is seen that though there is a signature found on the first page of the application along with the date and month as 18/3, however, there are no details about the signatory such as, the name and designation of the person who signed it. One more interesting factor which cannot be lost sight of is that Annexure-R.4 is the certified copy of the application which was obtained on 19/2/2022 i.e., during the pendency of the writ petition. The seal found on the top left corner of the application refers to the date as 13/3/2003. There was no reason for occurrence of this date (13/3/2003) in the certified copy which was obtained in the year 2022. These discrepancies create a doubt in the mind of this Court and therefore, it is difficult to accept Annexure-R.4 as a true and genuine document. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. This being our opinion, in the natural corollary, the appeal, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.