Karnataka High Court slaps Rs 25k cost on assistant commissioner for wrongly interpreting Senior Citizens' Act

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on an Assistant Commissioner of Savanur in Haveri district, for exceeding his jurisdiction by entertaining a frivolous application under section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act.

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed that the Assistant Commissioner’s overreach in the matter not only misinterpreted the provisions of the Senior Citizens Act but also disrupted the legal protection afforded to a bonafide purchaser.

The petitioner in the case Dhariyappagouda Patil purchased a property from the wife and children of one Basavaraj Walishettar. Subsequent to this purchase, Basavaraj Walishettar’s mother Rathnamma filed an application under section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act. The provision empowers authorities to declare void any transfer of property made by a senior citizen if such transfer includes a condition that the transferee shall provide for the basic amenities and physical needs of the senior citizen.

On February 16, 2024, the Assistant Commissioner nullified the sale deed executed in favour of Dhariyappagouda Patil. Challenging this order, the petitioner contended that the property in question was allotted to Basavaraj Walishettar by a registered partition deed. He further submitted that the property transfer did not fall under the conditions specified in section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act. He further stated that due to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, he was forced to re-negotiate and settle the matter with Rathnamma, by paying an additional Rs 8.5 lakh.

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum noted that after the partition, Rathnamma is not the current owner of the property. The petitioner, being a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration, does not fall within the ambit of the transferee as defined under Section 23 of the Act, 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 have 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,” the court said, directing the Assistant Commissioner to deposit the cost amount with the Advocate Clerks Welfare Fund, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad.