Karnataka High Court
Smt Hanumakka vs Shri Arakkanetil Omen Iype on 16 August, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH 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.2606 OF 2018 (SC-ST)
C/W
W.A. NO.1201 OF 2018 (SC-ST)
IN W.A. NO.2606 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.49, 5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. CHANDRASHEKAR P.V. ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. ARAKKANETIL OMEN IYPE
S/O A.E. OMEN
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER
SMT. LEELA MENON
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
W/O LATE .V.N.K. MENON
R/AT NO.184, NANADIDURGA ROAD
CRESCENT, BANGALORE 560 046.
2
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE 560001
REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY.
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 009.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION
VISVESWARAIAH TOWERS
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE 560001.
5. SRI. SANJEEVKUMAR SINGH
S/O RANAJITHKUMAR SINGH
MAJOR IN AGE
R/AT. NO.193, FRESY POLICE APARTMENTS
KABEPAIDI, BANGALORE 560005.
6. SMT. HUNUMAKKA
W/O VENKATASWAMY, MAJOR IN AGE
R/AT BAGALUR VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
BANGALORE 560068.
7. SRI. MUNNINARAYANA
S/O VENKATASWAMY
MAJOR IN AGE
R/AT. BAGALUR VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
BANGALORE 560068.
8. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
MAJOR IN AGE
R/AT. BAGALUR VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI
3
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
BANGALORE 560068.
9. SRI. NARASIMHA
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
MAJOR IN AGE
R/AT. BAGALUR VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
BANGALORE 560068.
10. SRI. VENKATESH
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
MAJOR IN AGE
R/AT. BAGALUR VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
BANGALORE 560068.
11. SRI. RAVIKUMAR
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
MAJOR IN AGE
R/AT. BAGALUR VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
BANGALORE 560068.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. S. SHAKER SHETTY, ADV., FOR R1
MRS. VANI H, AGA FOR R2 TO R4
MR. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, ADV., FOR R6-R11
V/O DTD:24.09.2021 NOTICE TO R5 D/W)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 20/02/2018 PASSED IN WP 10137/2010 [SC-
ST] BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
4
IN W.A. NO.1201 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. HANUMAKKA
W/O VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
R/AT BAGALUR VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
BENGALURU-560068.
2. SRI. MUNINARAYANA
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT BAGALUR VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
BENGALURU-560068.
3. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT BAGALUR VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
BENGALURU-560068.
4. SRI. NARASIMHA
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT BAGALUR VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
BENGALURU-560068.
5. SRI. VENKATESH
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT BAGALUR VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
BENGALURU-560068.
6. SRI. RAVIKUMAR
S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
5
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT BAGALUR VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
BENGALURU-560068.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SHRI. ARAKKANETIL OMEN IYPE
S/O A.E. OMEN
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER
SMT. LEELA MENON
W/O LATE V.N.K. MENON
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO.184, NANDIDURGA ROAD
CRESCENT, BANGALORE-560046.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-56001
REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY.
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DIST
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BANGALORE-560009.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION
VISVESWARAIAH TOWERS
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001.
5. SANJEEVKUMAR SINGH
S/O RANAJITHKUMAR SINGH, MAJOR
R/AT 193, FRESY POLICE
6
APARTMENTS, KABEPAIDI
BENGALURU-560005.
6. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB)
4 & 5TH FLOOR, V EAST WING
KHANIJA BHAVAN, NO.49
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. S. SHEKAR SHETTY, ADV., FOR R1
MRS. VANI H, AGA FOR R2 TO R4
MR. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R6)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
10137/2010 DATED 20/2/2018.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These intra Court appeals have been filed
against the order dated 20.02.2018 passed by the
learned Single Judge by which the writ petition
preferred by the respondent No.1 in
W.P.No.10137/2010 has been allowed. The appellant
in W.A.No.1201/2018 is the legal representative of
original grantee.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals
briefly stated are that the land bearing Sy.No.177/P27
measuring 4 acres situated at Bagalur Village, Jala
Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk (hereinafter referred to
as 'schedule land', for short) was allotted in favour of
one Venkataswamy who, during his life time, sold the
schedule land by a registered sale deed dated
06.09.1962. Subsequently, the respondent No.1
purchased the schedule land by registered sale deed
dated 18.08.1997. After a period of 27 years from the
date when Karnataka Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain
Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',
for short) came into force, an application was filed by
the legal representatives of Venkataswamy seeking
resumption of the land in question. The aforesaid
application was allowed by the Assistant
Commissioner by an order dated 04.01.2008 and the
said order was upheld in an appeal before the Deputy
Commissioner by an order dated 03.03.2010. The
respondent No.1 challenged the aforesaid orders in a
writ petition. The learned Single Judge, taking note of
enormous delay in filing the application seeking
resumption, has allowed the writ petition preferred by
the respondent No.1 and has set aside the orders
passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the
Deputy Commissioner. In the aforesaid factual
background, these appeals have been filed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties at length. 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.
4. Admittedly, in the instant case, the land in
question was granted on 15.04.1955 and the same
was alienated by the original grantee on 06.09.1962
and therefore, respondent No.1 had purchased the
land on 18.08.1997. The application seeking
resumption of the schedule land under Section 5 of
the Act was filed after a period of 27 years from the
date when the Act came into force. The delay in filing
the application was not explained. Therefore, in view
of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the
Assistant Commissioner erred in entertaining the
aforesaid application and the Deputy Commissioner
erred in upholding the order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner. The learned Single Judge has rightly
set aside the orders passed by the Assistant
Commissioner dated 04.01.2008 and the Deputy
Commissioner dated 03.03.2010.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find
any merit in the appeals. The same fail and are
hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
