Karnataka High Court
Sri M. Kadriyappa vs The Special Deputy Commissioner on 25 August, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH 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.181 OF 2022 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M. KADRIYAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
SINCE DAED BY HIS LR'S.
1. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O LATE KADEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
2. SMT. CHIKKAMUNIYAMMA
W/O LATE KADEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
3. SRI. CHANDRAKUMAR
S/O LATE KADEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.
4. SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE KADEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT SURADENAPURA VILLAGE
HESSARAGATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH ADDL TALUK
BANGALORE.
2
REP. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
SRI. BETTAIAH
S/O BETTE GOWDA
AGE 71 YEARS
R/AT NO.29 AND 30, 7TH-A-CROSS
23RD MAIN ROAD, JP NAGAR
2ND PHASE, BANGALORE-560078.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. M. NAGESH, ADV., FOR
MR. B. RAVINDRANATH, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
BANGALORE 560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION
BANGALORE 560 002.
3. SHRI. INDU BHARTIA
W/O LATE DINESH K. BHARTIA
AGED MAJOR
R/AT. 4, DEEKSHA APARTMENTS
NO.103, DEFENCE COLONY
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-38.
REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER
SHRI. GUNJAN BHARTIA
S/O LATE DINESH K. BHARTIA
NO.103, DEFENCE COLONY
INDIRANGAR, BANGALORE-38.
4. SRI. MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE MINIMARAPPA
AGE MAJOR.
5. SRI. HANUMAPPA
AGE MAJOR.
3
6. SMT. GANGAMMA
W/O LATE THIPPAIAH
AGED MAJOR.
7. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE RAJANNA
AGED MAJOR.
8. SHRI. MUNIKRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKADASAPPA.
RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 8 ARE
R/AT SURADENAPURA VILLAGE
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI 560 073
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL ) TALUK.
9. SHRI. T.S. BYLAPPA
S/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAH
AGE MAJOR
R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE 560 073.
10. SHRI. C.K. KARIYAPPA
S/O KUSHALAPPA
AGE MAJOR
R/AT GONIKOPPA
DAKSHNA KODAGU
KODAGU DISTRICT 571 236.
11. SHRI. K. SITHARAM
AGE MAJOR
NO.47/1, 5TH MAIN ROAD
CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE 560 018.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. P.K. SHRIKARA, ADV., FOR C/R3
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 SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED
31.01.2020 IN WP NO.44540/2013 (SC-ST) PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE COURT. CALL FOR RECORDS.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra Court appeal has been filed against
the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the learned
Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by
the appellants has been dismissed. In order to
appreciate the appellants' grievance, few facts need
mention which are stated infra.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that the land bearing old
Sy.No.31/17 and new Sy.No. 58 measuring 2 acres
situated at Srimanahalli Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli,
Bangalore North (Addl.) Taluk was granted in favour
of Munidasa @ Munidasappa 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, 31.12.1992 and 30.11.1993.
Some time in the year 2006, after a period of 26 years,
the legal representatives of the original grantee filed
an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition
of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the 1978 Act' for short). The aforesaid
application was allowed by the Assistant
Commissioner by an order dated 01.04.2008. The
respondent Nos.3 and 4 preferred an appeal which
was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner by an order
dated 27.09.2012. The order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner was assailed by the appellants in a writ
petition. The writ petition preferred by the appellants
has been dismissed by the impugned order and the
order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated
27.09.2012 was affirmed inter alia holding that the
application for resumption of land in question was
made after a delay of 26 years. In the aforesaid
factual background, this appeal has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that within the period of non-alienation, the land in
question was sold on account of illiteracy of the
original grantee. It is further submitted that the
learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that
against the order dated 01.04.20s08 passed by the
Assistant Commissioner, an appeal in another
proceeding with regard to the very same land was
preferred before the Special Deputy Commissioner
which was dismissed on 28.07.2010. However, in the
case of the appellants, a contrary view has been taken
by the Deputy Commissioner. In support of aforesaid
submission, reliance has been placed on the decisions
of this Court in 'P. KAMALA Vs. STATE OF
KARNATAKA' ILR 2019 KAR 3301 AND
'SHIVARAJU & ORS. Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'
IN REVIEW PETITION NO. 393/2012 DECIDED ON
28.06.2022.
4. We have considered the submission made by
the learned counsel for the appellants 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.
5. In the instant case, the proceeding under the
Act has been initiated after a delay of 26 years. Thus,
the proceeding initiated under the Act suffers from
delay and laches for which no explanation has been
offered. The learned Single Judge has therefore,
rightly affirmed the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find
any merit in the appeal. The same fails and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
