Karnataka High Court
Smt Chikkathayamma vs Smt Puttathayamma on 1 August, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. NO.386 OF 2022 (SC-ST)
IN
W.P.No.19630 OF 2009 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SMT CHIKKATHAYAMMA
W/O LATE CHANNAKESHAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
R/OF RAGIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE
KOTHATHI HOBLI
MANDYA TALUK
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
H MALLIGERE VILLAGE
DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK - 571 401
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. A.DHARMESH, ADV., FOR
SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G B, ADV., (P/H) )
AND:
1. SMT PUTTATHAYAMMA
W/O LATE PUTTARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
2. SADASHIVA
S/O LATE PUTTARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
2
3. KUMARA
S/O LATE PUTTARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
4. VAJRAKUMARA
S/O LATE PUTTARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
5. PRASANNA @ RAMESHA
S/O LATE PUTTARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
6. NANJUNDA
S/O LATE PUTTARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.6
RAGIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE
KOTHATHI HOBLI
MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT - 571 401
7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DIST
MANDYA - 571 401
8. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR
MANDYA SUB DIVISION
MANDYA - 571 401
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, AGA., FOR R7 & R8 (P/H) )
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.19630/2009
(SC-ST); b) PASS AN ORDER ALLOWING THE APPLICATION
FILED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 5(2) OF THE
KARNATAKA SCHEDULE CASTES & SCHEDULE TRIBES
3
(PREVENTION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) ACT, 1978;
c) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S OR RELIEFS THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTERET OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.A.Dharmesh, learned counsel for Mr.Sharath
Gowda G.B., learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.7 and 8.
This intra Court appeal has been filed against
the order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the learned
Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by
the respondent Nos.1 to 6 has been allowed.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that the father-in-law of the
appellant was granted land measuring 4 acres of
Sy.No.81, Block-A, New No.137 of Ragimuddanahalli
Village, Kothathi Hobli, Mandya Taluk on 31.05.1946.
By a registered sale deed, the aforesaid land was sold
to the husband of respondent No.1 on 09.08.1977.
After a period of 20 years, the appellant filed an
application seeking resumption of the land under the
provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain
Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',
for short.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, by an order
dated 31.01.2003, allowed the application preferred
by the appellant. In the appeal, the aforesaid order
was affirmed. Thereupon, respondent Nos.1 to 6
challenged the order in a writ petition before the
learned Single Judge which has been allowed by an
order dated 27.11.2018.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised a
singular contention that the learned Single Judge
ought to have appreciated that there was a total
prohibition invoked at the relevant time. It is further
submitted that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has
not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional
Government Advocate has supported the order passed
by the learned Single Judge.
6. 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
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS' (2020) 14 SCC 432 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
be granted. In the aforesaid case, delay of 20 years in
filing the application for resumption was held to be
unreasonable.
7. Admittedly, in the instant case, the land in
question was alienated on 09.08.1977 and an
application under the Act seeking resumption of the
land was filed after a delay of 20 years. The delay in
making the application seeking resumption of the
land does not entitle the appellant to seek any relief.
However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not
been appreciated neither by the Assistant
Commissioner nor the Deputy Commissioner. The
learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the orders
passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the
Deputy Commissioner. The delay in filing the
application for resumption of land is 20 years for
which no explanation has been offered.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find
any ground to differ with the view taken by the
learned Single Judge.
In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
8. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the
pending interlocutory application does not survive for
consideration and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
