Karnataka High Court
Sri Muniyappa vs The Special Deputy Commissioner on 22 August, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND 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.152 OF 2022 (SC-ST)
IN
W.P. NO.44506 OF 2013 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MUNIYAPPA
W/O LATE MUNIMARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
2. SMT. GANGAMMA
W/O LATE THIPPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
3. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE RAJANNA
AGED MAJOR.
4. SHRI. MUNIKRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKADASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT SURADENAPURA VILLAGE
HESSARAGATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
BANGALORE
REP. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
2
SRI. B. BETTAIAH
S/O LATE BETTE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT NOS.29 AND 30
7TH "A" CROSS, 23RD MAIN ROAD
J.P. NAGAR, II PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 078.
... APPELLANTS
[BY MR. B. RAVINDRANATH, ADV., (ABSENT)]
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
BANGALORE - 560 009.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION
BANGALORE - 560 002.
3. SHRI. RAMESH MANI IYER
S/O. SRI. S.S. MANI
AGED MAJOR,
4. SMT. BHAVANI RAMESH IYER
W/O. ULLAL SADASHIVA NAYAK
AGED MAJOR.
R3 AND R4 ARE R/AT NO.221, B3
GHATAPRABHA
NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE - 560 034
BOTH ARE REP. BY GPA HOLDER
SRI. GIRIDHAR KINI
FLAT NO.A/3, GAURAV ENCLAVE
331/1, KHB ROAD, SULTANPALYA
R.T. NAGAR POST, 4, 1ST CROSS
BANGALORE - 560 032.
3
5. SRI. M. KADRIYAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT SURADENAPURA VILLAGE
HESARAGATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 061.
6. SRI. HANUMAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT SURADENAPURA VILLAGE
HESARAGATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 061.
7. SHRI. T.S. BYLAPPA
S/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAH
AGE: MAJOR
R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 073.
8. SHRI. C.K. KARIYAPPA
S/O. KUSHALAPPA
AGE: MAJOR
R/AT GONIKOPPA, DAKSHINA KODAGU
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236.
9. SHRI. K. SITHARAM
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN
AGE:MAJOR, NO.47/1
5TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET
BANGALORE - 560 018.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA., FOR R1 &R2)
---
4
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
WRIT APPEAL. SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 31.01.2020 IN WRIT
PETITION NO.44506/2013 (SC-ST) PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT. ISSUE ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION,
WRIT DEEMED PROPER.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal arises from an order
31.01.2020 passed by learned Single Judge, by which
writ petition preferred by the appellant has been
dismissed.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal
briefly stated are that land bearing Sy.No.31/18 New
Survey No.70 measuring 2 acres situate at
Sriramanahalli Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore
North (Addl.) Taluk was granted in favour of one late
Chikkathippa on 10.09.1949. The aforesaid land was
alienated under a registered sale deed dated
06.07.1967 and thereafter was re-conveyed on
31.06.1980, 22.05.1990 and 05.01.1994.
3. An application was filed after a delay of 26
years in the year 2006 before the Assistant
Commissioner 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). The Assistant
Commissioner by an order dated 13.02.2008 allowed
the application. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal
was preferred by the Deputy Commissioner, who
allowed the same by an order dated 02.07.2010. The
aforesaid order passed by the Deputy Commissioner
was challenged in a writ petition before the learned
Single Judge, which has been dismissed by impugned
order 31.01.2020. In the aforesaid factual
background, this appeal has been filed.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the
appellants and have perused the record. The Supreme
Court in 'NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS' 2017 SCC Online SC
1862 has held that even though no time limit is
prescribed for initiation of action under the Act, yet
the same has to be initiated within reasonable time.
5. In the instant case, the land in question
was granted on 10.09.1949. The same was alienated
on 05.07.1969, 31.06.1980, 22.05.1990 and
05.01.1994. The legal representatives of the grantee
filed an application for resumption of the same after a
period of 26 years from the date when the Act came
into force i.e. 01.01.1979. No explanation has been
offered for making such an application after an
inordinate delay of 26 years. The Deputy
Commissioner, therefore, has rightly held that the
legal representatives of the grantee are not entitled to
resumption of the land and the said order has been
upheld.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find
any merit in this appeal. The same fails and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
