Asst. Commissioner’s Authority Under Senior Citizens Act Doesn’t Extend To Nullifying Sale Deed Executed For Valuable Consideration: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court has observed that an Assistant Commissioner's authority under Senior Citizens Act does not extend to nullifying a sale deed executed for valuable consideration.
The Karnataka High Court imposed costs of Rs 25k on an Assistant Commissioner for exceeding his jurisdiction by entertaining a frivolous application under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act (the Act). The Court noted the lack of due diligence and disregard for procedural fairness, which highlighted a significant lapse in the exercise of administrative power.
A Single Bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed, “The impugned order under challenge is liable to be quashed on two primary grounds. Firstly, the parties involved have amicably settled, necessitating the order's nullification. Secondly, and more critically, the Assistant Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by entertaining an application under Section 23 of the Act, which was not maintainable under the circumstances. The Assistant Commissioner’s authority does not extend to nullifying a sale deed executed for valuable consideration, and his actions in this case represent an overreach of his statutory powers. ”
Advocate Shivaraj P. Mudhol appeared for the petitioner, while HCGP V.S. Kalasurmath represented the respondents.
The petition was filed by the petitioner, the subsequent transferee of a property, who was aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner who nullified a registered sale deed executed by the petitioner's predecessors for a valuable sale consideration.
The Court noted that the Assistant Commissioner’s decision was made without the petitioner’s knowledge, despite him being a bona fide purchaser.
The Dharwad Bench explained that Section 23 of the Act allowed authorities to declare void any transfer of property made by a senior citizen only if such transfer included a condition that the transferee shall provide for the basic amenities and physical needs of the senior citizen.
“The records in the present case reveal that the property in question was allotted to Basvaraj, the husband of respondent No.4-Sharada, under a registered partition deed documented at Annexure-D. This clearly indicates that the property transfer was legitimate and did not fall under the conditions specified in Section 23 of the Act. 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,” the Court remarked.
Despite the Court permitting the parties to settle the matter amicably, the Court acknowledged that the Assistant Commissioner exceeded his powers by entertaining the application under Section 23 of the Act and nullifying a valid registered sale deed.
“The Assistant Commissioner’s authority does not extend to nullifying a sale deed executed for valuable consideration, and his actions in this case represent an overreach of his statutory powers,” the Bench noted.
Consequently, the Bench quashed the impugned order and declared the sale deed valid.
“This lack of due diligence and disregard for procedural fairness highlights a significant lapse in the exercise of administrative power. The imposition of a cost of Rs.25,000/- on respondent No.2, payable to the Advocate Clerks Welfare Fund, 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 held.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Sri Dhariyappagouda Patil v. The State Of Karnataka & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC-D:9008)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Shivaraj P. Mudhol
Respondents: HCGP V.S. Kalasurmath; Advocates H.N. Gularaddi, Mahantesh R. Patil and S.B. Chanal
