1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. NO.67 OF 2022 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
N. NAGESH
S/O LATE T. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT INDA, RASANAHA L1I
VILLAGE, HEGGANAHALLI POST
KUNDANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT
(BY MRS. JYOTHI S.K. ADV., (ABSENT))
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
VISVESHWARAIAH TOWER
PODIUM BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
2
DODDABALLAPUR.
4. P. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE PATALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT THINDLU VILLAGE
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU.
5. SAROJAMMA
W/O P. NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT THINDLU VILLAGE
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU.
6. K. SUDHAKARA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
DIRECTOR OF M/S SHAPEL INVESTMENT
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.198
END MAIN, 2ND CROSS
KEB LAYOUT, SANJAYA NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 094.
7. CHANDRU ROYYUR
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
DIRECTOR OF M/S SHAPEL INVESTMENT
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.198
END MAIN, 2ND CROSS
KEB LAYOUT, SANJAYA NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 094.
... RESPONDENTS
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
3
09/12/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
WP NO.44376/2016 (SC-ST).
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises from an order dated 09.12.2021 passed by learned Single Judge by which writ petition preferred by the appellant had been dismissed.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the land in old Sy.No.7 measuring 2 acres situated at Indarasanahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk was granted on 17.10.1978. Thereafter, the property was transferred in the name of the appellant and the land was assigned a new survey No.7/P14 currently numbered as Sy.No.91. The land was transferred in the year 1991 on death of his father. The appellant thereafter transferred the land in favour of respondents No.4 4 and 5 by registered sale deed dated 25.06.1994 who in turn alienated the same in favour of respondents No.6 and 7 vide registered sale deeds dated 29.03.2005 and 09.01.2006. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. The Assistant Commissioner directed resumption of the land in favour of the appellant. Respondents No.6 and 7 thereupon filed an appeal. The Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 23.07.2016 has allowed the appeal preferred by Respondents No.6 and 7. The said order was challenged by appellant in a writ petition, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge.
3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. The Supreme Court in 'NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF 5 KARNATAKA AND OTHERS' (2020) 14 SCC 232 has held that Section 5 of the 1978 Act enables any interested person to make an application for having the transfer annulled as void under Section 4 of the Act. The aforesaid Section does not prescribe for any period of limitation. However, it has been held that any action whether on an application of the parties or suo motu, must be taken within a reasonable period of time. The Supreme Court, in the aforesaid decision, held that the application seeking resumption of the land filed after a period of 24 years, suffered from inordinate delay and was therefore, liable to be dismissed on that ground. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in 'VIVEK M.HINDUJA & ANR. Vs. M.ASHWATHA' (2020) 14 SCC 228 and it was held that whenever limitation is not prescribed, the party ought to approach the competent Court or Authority within a reasonable time beyond which no relief can 6 be granted. In the aforesaid case, delay of 20 years in filing the application for resumption was held to be unreasonable.
4. Admittedly, in the facts of the case, there is a delay of 15 years in filing the application seeking resumption of the land for which no explanation has been offered. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly allowed the appeal preferred by Respondents 6 and 7. We therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE SS