'Act Within Bounds Of Legal Authority': Karnataka HC Imposes 25K Cost On Asst Commissioner Of Senior Citizens Tribunal For Entertaining Frivolous Plea

A single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, directed the Assistant Commissioner of Savanur Sub-Division to pay the cost with the Advocate Clerks Welfare Fund, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad.

The court said “The Assistant Commissioner's overreach in this matter not only misinterprets the Act's provisions but also disrupts the legal protection afforded to bonafide purchasers who had acquired property for valuable consideration. By nullifying a registered sale deed without proper jurisdiction, the Assistant Commissioner undermined the legal certainty and stability of property transactions, leading to unnecessary litigation and financial hardship for the petitioner.”

It added, “The imposition of a cost underscores the seriousness of this jurisdictional overreach and serves as a reminder of the need for officials to act within the bounds of their legal authority.”

The court gave the direction while allowing a petition filed by one Dhariyappagouda Patil who had challenged the order of the Assistant Commissioner, who had entertained an application filed under Section 23 of the Act filed by Ratnamma, (mother of deceased Basavaraj) and nullified a registered sale deed executed by the respondent Nos.4 to 6 (wife and children of Basavaraj) with the Patil, without giving him a hearing.

Observing that Section 23 of the Act, empowers authorities to declare void any transfer of property made by a senior citizen after the commencement of the Act, but only if such transfer includes a condition that the transferee shall provide for the basic amenities and physical needs of the senior citizen.

The court said, “In the present case the property in question was allotted to Basvaraj, the husband of respondent No.4-Sharada, under a registered partition deed and after his death the respondents were the owners being legal heirs of Basavaraj.”

“The Assistant Commissioner's decision to nullify the sale deed, executed for a valuable sale consideration, oversteps the boundaries of his jurisdiction and misinterprets the provisions of the Act,” it added.

The Court stated that the property was not transferred by Respondent No. 3 (Ratnamma) but was part of the inheritance and subsequent sale by Respondents 4 to 8 (legal heirs of Basavaraj). The petitioner acquired the property through a registered sale deed for valuable consideration.

It added that since Respondent No. 3 did not transfer the property to the petitioner, and the transfer was part of a legal inheritance process followed by a sale for valuable consideration, Section 23 cannot be invoked. It said that the petitioner, as a bona fide purchaser, is not liable under Section 23 as he did not receive the property gratuitously or with notice of any obligation towards Respondent No. 3.

Quashing the impugned order on the grounds that the parties involved have amicably settled necessitating the order's nullification, the court said that the Assistant Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by entertaining an application under Section 23 of the Act, which was not maintainable under the circumstances.

 “Lack of due diligence and disregard for procedural fairness highlights a significant lapse in the exercise of administrative power," it held.

During the hearing, the court had allowed the petitioner and Ratnamma (mother of Basvaraj) to settle the dispute and accordingly, it was settled on making of additional payment. However, the court said, “This settlement, however, does not negate the fact that the Assistant Commissioner's initial order was beyond his legal powers.”

Thus it directed that the amount paid by the petitioner to Ratnamma be kept in a fixed deposit for five years.

Appearance: Advocate Shivaraj P Mudhol for Petitioner.

HCGP V S Kalasurmath FOR R1 & R2.

Advocate H.N Gularaddi for R3.

Advocate Mahantesh R Patil FOR R4-R7.

Advocate S.B Chanal for R8.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 328

Case Title: Dhariyappagouda Patil AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 101705 OF 2024