Sri Muniyappa vs The Deputy Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 11536 Kant

                             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.160 OF 2022 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:

1.    SRI. MUNIYAPPA
      S/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 R/AT SURADENAPURA VILLAGE
      HESSARAGATTA HOBLI
      BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
      BANGALORE.
      REP. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
      SRI. B. BETTAIAH
      S/O LATE BETTE GOWDA
      AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
                            2



     R/AT NO.29 AND 30, 7TH A CROSS
     23RD MAIN ROAD, J P NAGAR
     II PHASE, BANGALORE-560078.

                                       ... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. M. NAGESH, ADV., FOR
    MR. B. RAVINDRANATH, ADV.,)

AND:

1.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     BANGALORE DISTRICT
     BANGALORE-560009.

2.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
     BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION
     BANGALORE-560002.

3.   SHRI. SOWMYA ARADHYA
     W/O LATE MALLIKARJUN ARADHYA
     AGED MAJOR.

4.   SRI. JASHWA ARADHYA
     S/O LATE MALLIKARJUN ARADHYA
     AGED MAJOR.

5.   SRI. YESHWANTH ARADHYA
     S/O LATE MALLIKARJUN ARADHYA.

     RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 5 ARE
     R/AT. NO.739, 14TH MAIN
     KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
     BANGALORE-78
     RESPONDENTS NO.5 & 6 ARE MINORS
     REP. BY THEIR OTHER AND
     NATURAL GUARDIAN.

6.   SRI. M. KADRIYAPPA
     S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
     R/AT SURADENAPURA VILLAGE
                           3



     HESARAGATTA HOBLI
     BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
     BANGALORE-560061.

7.   SRI. HANUMAPPA
     S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
     R/AT SURADENAPURA VILLAGE
     HESARAGATTA HOBLI
     BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
     BANGALORE-560061.

8.   SHRI. T.S. BYLAPPA
     S/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAH
     AGE MAJOR
     R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
     BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
     BANGALORE-560073.

9.   SHRI. C.K. KARIYAPPA
     S/O KUSHALAPPA
     AGE MAJOR
     R/AT GONIKOPPA
     DAKSHINA KODAGU
     KODAGU DISTRICT-571236.

10. SHRI. K. SITHARAM
    FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
    AGE MAJOR
    NO.47/1, 5TH MAIN ROAD
    CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-560018.

                                     ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)
                         ---

     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
                              4



PETITION NO.44515/2013 (SC-ST) PASSED BY THIS HON BLE
COURT. ISSUE ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, WRIT.

     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 01.04.2008 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