Sri. Manjunath vs Sri. N. Venkatareddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 11539 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.358 OF 2022 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:

1.    SRI. MANJUNATH
      S/O C. VENKATAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

2.    SMT. PARVATHAMMA
      W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

3.    C. VENKATAPPA
      S/O LATE CHINNAPPAIAH @
      CHINNAPPAIAH BHOVI
      AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.

4.    SRI. VENKATAREDDY
      S/O LATE CHINNAPPAIAH @
      CHINNAPPAIAH BHOVI
      AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

5.    SRI. SRIRAMAPPA
      S/O LATE CHINNAPPAIAH @
      CHINNAPPAIAH BHOVI
      AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

      ALL ARE R/AT J.V. COLONY VILLAGE
                            2



     KASABA HOBLI
     J. THIMMASANDRA POST
     SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
     KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.

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

AND:

1.   SRI. N. VENKATAREDDY
     S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
     R/AT AARIKUNTE VILLAGE
     RONURU HOBLI
     SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
     KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.

2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     KOLAR DISTRICT
     KOLAR-563 101.

3.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
     KOLAR SUB-DIVISION
     KOLAR-563 101.

4.   THE TAHSILDAR
     SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
     KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.

                                     ... 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 CALL FOR THE
ENTIRE RECORDS IN WRIT PETITION 21866/2021 (SC-ST) ON
THE FILE OF THIS HONBLE COURT. TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP No-
21866/2021    (SC-ST)   DATED      17.01.2022    AND
                                 3



CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION BY
UPLOADING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN FAVOUR
OF APPELLANTS.

     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

17.01.2022 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.8 measuring

3 acres situate at Ramapura Village, Kasaba Hobli,

Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District was granted in

favour of one late Chinnappaiah on 10.05.1972. The

aforesaid land was alienated under a registered sale

deed dated 20.01.1997.

3. An application was filed after a delay of 17

years in the year 2014 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 19.01.2017 allowed

the application. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal

was preferred by the Deputy Commissioner, who

dismissed the same by an order dated 31.08.2021.

The aforesaid orders passed by the Assistant

Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner were

challenged in a writ petition before the learned Single

Judge, which has been allowed by impugned order

17.01.2022. 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 10.05.1972. The same was alienated

on 20.01.1997. The appellants filed an application for

resumption of the same after a period of 17 years from

the date when the land was first alienated. No

explanation has been offered for making such an

application after an inordinate delay of 17 years. The

learned Single Judge, therefore, has quashed the

orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and

Deputy Commissioner by holding that the appellants

have not filed the application for resumption of the

land within a reasonable time.

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