Smt G Vijayalakshmi vs Sri R Ramachandrarao
2022 Latest Caselaw 11309 Kant

                           1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 10TH 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.4059 OF 2019 (SC-ST)
                        IN
           W.P.No.21764 OF 2012 (SC-ST)
                       C/W
           W.A. NO.4071 OF 2019 (SC-ST)
                        IN
           W.P. NO.21767 of 2012 (SC-ST),

            W.A.NO.4072 OF 2019 (SC-ST)
                        IN
           W.P. NO.21766 OF 2012 (SC-ST),

           W.A. NO.4075 OF 2019 (SC-ST)
                        IN
           W.P. NO.21768 OF 2012 (SC-ST),

           W.A.NO.4078 OF 2019 (SC-ST)
                        IN
           W.P. NO.21765 OF 2012 (SC-ST)

IN W.A. NO.4059 OF 2019
IN W.P.No.21764 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

SMT. G. VIJAYALAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
                             2



W/O DR. G. KRISHNA RAO
R/AT NO.17, CHINNASWAMY
MUDILIAR ROAD, TASKER ROAD
BANGALORE-560051.

AT PRESENT R/AT NO.2
DODDAKALAPPA MAIN ROAD
HALASURU, BANGALORE-560008.
                                       ... APPELLANT

(BY MR. JAYA KUMAR S. PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
    MR. MAHAMAD TAHIR A, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     SRI. R. RAMACHANDRA RAO
       S/O R. SATHYANARAYANA
       NO.107, 4TH CROSS
       41ST MAIN, BTM 2ND STAGE
       BANGALORE-560 029.

       DIRECTOR OF MERLINHAWK AEROSPACE PVT. LTD.,
       NO.57/5, 6TH CROSS, TANK BUND ROAD
       N.S. PALYA, BTM LAYOUT
       2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 076.

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
       RAMANAGARA-561 201.

3.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION
       RAMANAGARA-561 201.

4.     THE TAHSILDAR
       KANAKAPURA
       KANAKAPURA TALUK-562 117.

5.     SRI. CHENIGAIAH
       SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR's.
                            3



5(a)   MOTTAMMA
       W/O LATE CHENIGAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

5(b)   SEETHAMMA
       D/O LATE CHENIGAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

       BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
       THERU BEEDI, MALLAGAMANA DODDI
       MARALAVADI HOBLI
       RAMANAGRA DISTRICT-562 121.

                                     ... RESPONDENTS

(BY MRS. VANI H, AGA FOR R2 TO R4
     MR. H. KANTHARAJ, SR. COUNSEL FOR
     MR. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, ADV., FOR C/R5 (a & b)
          R1 SERVED)
                          ---

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL, BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18/10/2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.21764/2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.5.

IN W.A. NO.4071 OF 2019 IN W.P. No.21767 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

SMT. G. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O DR. G. KRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/A NO.17, CHINNASWAMY MUDILIAR ROAD, TASKER ROAD BANGALORE-560051.

AT PRESENT R/A NO.2 DODDAKALAPPA MAIN ROAD HALASURU, BENGALURU-560008.

... APPELLANT

(BY MR. JAYA KUMAR S. PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. MAHAMAD TAHIR A, ADV.,)

AND:

1. SRI. R. RAMACHANDRARAO S/O R. SATHYANRAYANA DIRECTOR OF MERLINHAWK AEROSPACE PVT. LTD.

NO.57/5, 6TH CROSS TANK BUND ROAD N.S. PALYA, BTM LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560076.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA-562159.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION RAMANAGARA-562159.

4. THE TAHSILDAR KANAKAPURA KANAKAPURA TALUK-562117.

5. SRI. CHICKMUTAIAH S/O LATE MUNINAYAKA MAJOR IN AGE, 60 YEARS MALIGAMANA DODI KANAKAPURA TALUK

RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA-562159.

... RESPONDENTS (BY MRS. VANI H, AGA FOR R2 TO R4 MR. H. KANTHARAJ, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, ADV., FOR C/R5 V/O DTD:29.07.2022 NOTICE TO R1 D/W)

---

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL, BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18/10/2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.21767/2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 01/12/2010 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (RESPONDENT NO.2) IN CASE NO.LND.SC.ST.(A) 14/2009-10.

IN W.A. NO.4072 OF 2019 IN W.P.No.21766 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

SMT. G. VIJAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS W/O DR. G. KRISHNA RAO R/AT NO.17, CHINNASWAMY MUDILIAR ROAD TASKER ROAD, BANALORE-51.

AT PRESENT R/AT NO.2 DODDAKALAPPA MAIN ROAD HALASURU, BENGALURU-560008.

... APPELLANT (BY MR. JAYA KUMAR S. PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. MAHAMAD TAHIR A, ADV.,)

AND:

1. SRI. R. RAMACHANDRARAO S/O R. SATHYANARAYANA

DIRECTOR OF MERLINHAWK AEROSPACE PVT LTD NO.57/5, 6TH CROSS TANK BUND ROAD N S PALYA, BTM LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560076.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGAR DISTRICT RAMANAGAR-562159.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION RAMANAGARA-562159.

4. THE TAHSILDAR KANAKAPURA KANAKAPURA TALUK-562159.

5. SMT. THIMMAKKA W/O MUTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS MALIGAMANA DODDI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA-562159.

... RESPONDENTS (BY MRS. VANI H, AGA FOR R2 TO R4 MR. H. KANTHARAJ, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, ADV., FOR C/R5 V/O DTD:29.07.2022 NOTICE TO R1 D/W)

---

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL, BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18/10/2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.21766/2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 01/12/2020 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (RESPONDENT NO.2) IN CASE NO.LND.SC.ST.(A) 10/2009-10.

IN W.A. NO.4075 OF 2019 IN W.P.No.21768 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. G. VIJAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS W/O DR. G. KRISHNA RAO R/AT NO.17, CHINNASWAMY MUDILIAR ROAD TASKER ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 051.

AT PRESENT R/AT NO.2 DODDAKALAPPA MAIN ROAD HALASURU, BANGALORE - 560 008.

... APPELLANT

(BY MR. JAYA KUMAR S. PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. MAHAMAD TAHIR A, ADV.,)

AND:

1. SRI. R. RAMACHANDRARAO S/O R. SATHYANARAYANA NO.107, 4TH CROSS, 41 MAIN BTM 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE DIRECTOR OF MERLINHAWK AEROSPACE PVT LTD NO.57/5, 6TH CROSS, TANK BUND ROAD N.S.PALYA, BTM LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 076.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA-562159.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION RAMANAGARA-562159.

4. THE TAHSILDAR KANAKAPURA KANAKAPURA TALUK-562117.

5. SRI. ADHIGAIAH S/O SHIVAIAH MAJOR IN AGE MALIGAMANA DODDI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGAR-562159.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY MRS. VANI H, AGA FOR R2 TO R4 MR. H. KANTHARAJ, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, ADV., FOR C/R5 V/O DTD:29.07.2022 NOTICE TO R1 D/W)

---

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL, BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18/10/2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.21768/2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 01/12/2010 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (RESPONDENT NO.2) IN CASE NO.LND.SC.ST.(A) 12/2009-10.

IN W.A. NO.4078 OF 2019 IN W.P.No.21765 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

SMT. G. VIJAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS W/O DR. G. KRISHNA RAO R/A NO.17, CHINNASWAMY MUDILIAR ROAD TASKER ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 051.

AT PRESENT R/AT NO.1 DODDAKALAPPA MAIN ROAD HALASURU, BANGALORE - 560 008.

... APPELLANT (BY MR. JAYA KUMAR S. PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. MAHAMAD TAHIR A, ADV.,)

AND:

1. A.G. KRISHNA SWAMY S/O GOPAL SWAMY NO.20, 14TH CROSS 17TH A MAIN, J.P. NAGAR 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560078.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGAR SUB DIVISION RAMANAGAR-562159.

4. THE TAHSILDAR KANAKAPURA KANAKAPURA TALUK-562117.

5. SRI. MUTHANAYAKA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S.

5(a) MADURAMMA W/O LATE MUTHANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.

5(b) SIDAPPA S/O LATE MUTHANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

5(c) HONAMMA D/O LATE MUTHANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

5(d) SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O LATE MUTHANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

5(e) HONNAPPA S/O LATE MUTHANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

5(f) BHAGYA D/O LATE MUTHANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

5(g) GANGADHARA S/O LATE MUTHANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

5(h) GANGAGRAJ S/O LATE MUTHANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

5(i) NAGRATHNAMMA D/O LATE MUTHANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

ALL ARE RESIDING AT THERU BEEDHI MALLAGAMANA DODDI MARALAVADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

... RESPONDENTS (BY MRS. VANI H, AGA FOR R2 TO R4 MR. H. KANTHARAJ, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, ADV., FOR C/R5(a to i))

---

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL, BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18/10/2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.21765/2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 01/12/2010 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (RESPONDENT NO.2) IN CASE NO.LND.SC.ST.(A) 11/2009-10 .

THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

COMMON JUDGMENT

These intra Court appeals have been filed

against a common order dated 18.10.2019 passed by

the learned Single Judge by which orders passed by

the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy

Commissioner have been set aside and the matter has

been remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for a

fresh consideration. Since all the appeals arise from a

common order, they were heard together and are

being decided by this common judgment.

2. For the facility of reference, facts of

W.A.No.4059/2019 are being referred to. Land

bearing Sy.No.106/P-110 measuring 4 acres situated

at Teru-bedi Village, Maravalli Hobli, Kanakapura

Taluk (hereinafter referred to as the 'schedule land',

for short) was allotted to the father of the respondent

No.5 on 16.05.1942. However, the schedule land was

alienated on 07.12.1997. After a period of 10 years,

an application seeking resumption of the land was

filed under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer

of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as

'the Act', for short) on the ground that the respondent

No.5 belongs to 'beda' community which is a notified

Scheduled Tribe. The Assistant Commissioner, by an

order dated 16.06.2009, allowed the application

preferred by the respondent No.5. The aforesaid order

was affirmed in an appeal by the Deputy

Commissioner by an order dated 01.12.2010.

3. The appellant, who had purchased the

schedule land by a registered sale deed dated

17.09.2005, assailed the validity of the aforesaid

orders in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge, by

an interim order, referred the matter to the Caste

Verification Committee who opined that the petitioner

belongs to 'beda' community which is a notified

Scheduled Tribe. The learned Single Judge, however

by an order dated 18.10.2019, set aside the order

passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the

Deputy Commissioner and remitted the matter to the

Assistant Commissioner for adjudication afresh. In

the aforesaid factual background, these appeals have

been filed.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants

submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have

appreciated that there was inordinate delay in filing

the application seeking resumption of the land under

Section 5 of the Act. It is further submitted that on

this ground alone, the writ petition ought to have been

allowed. It is also submitted that by an interim order

passed by the learned Single Judge, the social status

of the respondent No.5 could not have been

ascertained.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent No.5 has submitted that the Caste

Verification Committee was constituted in accordance

with the Rules and with the consent of the appellant.

It is further submitted that the respondent No.5

belongs to 'beda' community which is a notified

Scheduled Tribe. It is alternatively urged that all

contentions are being kept open to be adjudicated in

the proceeding before the Assistant Commissioner and

therefore, no case for interference is made out in this

intra Court appeal.

6. We have considered the submissions made on

both sides 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. In the instant case, the grant was made in

favour of the father of respondent No.5 on

16.05.1942. The schedule land was alienated on

07.12.1997 for the first time. Thereafter, it was sold

to appellant on 17.09.2005. After the second sale, an

application on 16.06.2007 was filed under Section 5

of the Act seeking resumption. Thus, there was a

delay of 10 years in filing the application seeking

resumption. The Supreme Court in 'NINGAPPA Vs.

DY. COMMISSIONER & ORS.' IN CIVIL APPEAL

NO.3131/2007 DECIDED ON 14.07.2011, in case of

delay of 9 years in filing the application seeking

resumption, has held that there was a considerable

delay in filing the application for resumption and the

application seeking resumption should have been

dismissed on the ground of delay alone. In the

instant case, there is unexplained delay of 10 years in

filing the application for resumption.

8. It is also pertinent to mention that in the

original order of grant dated 16.05.1942, the caste of

the father of respondent No.5 has been described as

'bedaru' which is not a caste of Scheduled Tribe.

Similarly, the first sale deed dated 07.12.1997 also

contained a recital that the schedule land does not

belong either to a member of Scheduled Caste or a

Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, it is not permissible for

the respondent No.5 to turn around and to contend

that they belong to 'beda' community which is a

notified Scheduled Tribe. The aforesaid aspect of the

matter has not been appreciated by the learned Single

Judge. The order of remand will give rise to further

litigation and is not necessary in the facts and

circumstances of the instant case.

Therefore, the impugned order dated 18.10.2019

is hereby set aside.

In the result the appeals are disposed of.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV