Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 522 (KAR)

B. S. Sheshagiri Setty v. State of Karnataka

2012-07-02

K.L.MANJUNATH, V.SURI APPA RAO

body2012
JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath , J.—These appeals are filed challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed in W.P. Nos. 22453 of 2004 connected with W.P. No. 17054 of 2004, dated 24-1-2006 ( Vijay Dev S.V. Vs. Government of Karnataka and Others, (2006) 3 KarLJ 154 . Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The facts leading to these appeals are as hereunder: On 30-8-1971 the appellants and their father borrowed a loan of Rs. 16,000/- from Kadur Taluk Primary Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited. For non-payment of dues, the Bank raised a dispute before the Arbitrator, who passed an award on 31-5-1975 for a sum of Rs. 20,367/-. Certain agricultural lands which were offered as security were brought for sale by the Sale Officer as notified on 27-5-1981. The property was sold and the auction was confirmed on 10-12-1985 in favour of the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 22543 of 2004. Challenging the auction of sale and confirmation of sale, an appeal was filed before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Chikmagalur, which appeal came to be dismissed on 17-8-1996. Aggrieved by the same, a writ petition was filed and the writ petition came to be dismissed. Thereafter a writ appeal was filed. The writ appeal was also dismissed confirming the award. However, at the time of disposal of the appeal, the first appellant herein relied upon the Circular Bearing No. 5101/83-84, dated 2-3-1984 issued by the Government. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed that if the appellant is entitled to rely upon the Circular for any relief, he can seek appropriate relief from the appropriate authority. The writ appeal was dismissed on 1-3-1990. Based on the Circular issued by the Government, the appellant did not approach the authorities within the reasonable time. Thereafter he filed a revision before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chikmagalur, in Case No. DRC/DAP/1/95-96 which revision petition came to be dismissed. Thereafter he filed another revision petition before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mysore in Case No. JRM/DAC/30/96-97, which revision petition also came to be dismissed on 22-5-1997. Thereafter he filed a revision before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chikmagalur, in Case No. DRC/DAP/1/95-96 which revision petition came to be dismissed. Thereafter he filed another revision petition before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mysore in Case No. JRM/DAC/30/96-97, which revision petition also came to be dismissed on 22-5-1997. Thereafter, he filed a revision before the Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation, Government of Karnataka in Revision Petition No. CMW 33 CAP 98, who allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of sale confirmed and granted two months time for the appellants herein to repay the entire loan amount with up-to-date interest and also to pay the solatium payable to the purchaser and a direction was issued to put the appellants in possession of the property. Being aggrieved by the order dated 9-2-2004 passed by the Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation in the aforesaid revision, both the Bank as well as the auction purchaser filed the writ petitions. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, allowed the writ petitions and set aside the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation in revision petition. This order is called in question in these appeals. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the learned Single Judge has committed an error in setting aside the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister in the Revision petition. According to him, certain reliefs were granted to small farmers by the State of Karnataka by issuing a Circular, which Circular was in force upto 30-6-1983 and if a farmer who had borrowed the loan has paid the principal amount, the penal interest would be waived. According to him, the Government has further ordered that even if the property of a farmer is sold in auction, if auction is not yet confirmed and the amount is returned with solatium of 6%, such property would be saved. Therefore, he contends that since the appellants had availed the said benefit and deposited the money, as there was no order of confirmation as on 30-6-1983 and when the entire amount is paid by him, the Hon'ble Minister was justified in extending the said benefit to him. According to him, the learned Single Judge did not consider the effect of Circular. 5. According to him, the learned Single Judge did not consider the effect of Circular. 5. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Bank and the auction purchaser and the learned Government Advocate submitted that the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister was barred by limitation, since any revision was required to be filed at the instance of a party within six months from the date of the cause of action. According to Section 108 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short), if a revision petition is not filed within a period of six months, such revision could not have been entertained by the Hon'ble Minister. Therefore, they contend that the learned Single Judge relying upon Section 108 of the Act, has rightly allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister. Therefore, they request the Court to dismiss the appeals. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we have to consider whether the learned Single Judge has committed any error in order to interfere with the same? 7. As stated supra, the facts in these appeals are not in dispute to the following extent.-- That the appellants and their father have borrowed loan from Kadur Taluk Primary Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited on 30-8-1971 and award was passed under Section 70 of the Act on 31-5-1975 and the property of the appellants was sold in a public auction on 27-5-1981 and thereafter the sale has been confirmed. The order of the Arbitrator was questioned by the appellants before the Deputy Commissioner of Co-operative Societies, wherein he has confirmed the award, which award later was confirmed by this Court and the same has been further affirmed in a writ appeal filed before this Court. At the time of dismissal of the appeal, the appellants made a submission that they would like to rely upon the Circular issued by the State of Karnataka in favour of the farmers. Liberty was also granted by a Division Bench of this Court to make use of the same. But the question remains is that, for over a period of five years, the appellants have slept over the matter. They have filed appeal before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and both of them ended in dismissal. Liberty was also granted by a Division Bench of this Court to make use of the same. But the question remains is that, for over a period of five years, the appellants have slept over the matter. They have filed appeal before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and both of them ended in dismissal. Thereafter a revision was filed before the Hon'ble Minister in 1998 challenging the order of confirmation. The appellants relying upon the Circular which was in their favour till 30-6-1983 have filed a revision before the Hon'ble Minister in 1998, 15 years after the issuance of the Circular. Therefore, the question was whether the revision filed by the appellants before the Hon'ble Minister invoking provisions of Section 108 of the Act could have been entertained by the Hon'ble Minister or not? 8. Section 108 of the Act reads as hereunder: 108. Powers of revision of State Government. - Subject to the provisions of Section 108-A, the State Government] suo motu at any time, and, on application of any person aggrieved, within a period of six months from the date of any order, may call for and examine the record of any case subject to appeal or revision by the Tribunal or those in respect of which an appeal has been made to the State Government under Section 106, and the State Government after such enquiry as it deems fit is satisfied that the order of the officer is contrary to law and has resulted in miscarriage of justice, pass such orders thereon as the State Government deems just: Provided that no order shall be made to the prejudice of any person under this section unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 9. From a reading of the provisions of Section 108, it is clear that suo motu, the Government, may, at any time exercise the power of revision or if it is at the instance of the party within a period of six months. In the instant case, revision petition was filed by the appellants. Therefore, the appellants were required to file a revision petition within six months from the date of confirmation of the same, since the sale is confirmed in 1985. The appellants could not have filed a revision in 1998, 13 years after the orders of confirmation. In the instant case, revision petition was filed by the appellants. Therefore, the appellants were required to file a revision petition within six months from the date of confirmation of the same, since the sale is confirmed in 1985. The appellants could not have filed a revision in 1998, 13 years after the orders of confirmation. Even if it is held that suo motu at any time, the Government can exercise the powers of revision, then also, it has to be exercised within a reasonable time not beyond a period of three years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again has ruled that in cases of exercise of powers suo motu, the same shall be exercised within a reasonable period, but not beyond three years. 10. Viewed from any angle, revision petition allowed by the Hon'ble Minister was clearly barred by time and the same is contrary to Section 108 of the Act. The learned Single Judge if relying upon the provisions of Section 108 of the Act has granted relief to the writ petitioners, this Court cannot interfere with the same as no error is committed by him. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.