Sri Venkatesh vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 8754 Kant

                             1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

           THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

               W.A.NO.1003 OF 2021 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:

1.     SRI VENKATESH
       S/O LATE SRI LAKSHMAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

2.     SRI L MUNIRAJU
       S/O LATE SRI LAKSHMAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

3.     SRI L RAMAKRISHNAPPA
       S/O LATE SRI LAKSHMAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

       APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 ARE
       R/AT NOSENURU VILLAGE
       DODDAINDALAVADI POST
       JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUK
       BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 106.

                                        ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. G.B.NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. R.B.SADASHIVAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
                            2


     REVENUE DEPARTMENT
     M S BUILDING
     DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD
     BENGALURU - 560 001

2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
     SIR M V V TOWER
     PODIUM BLOCK,
     DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
     BENGALURU - 560 001

3.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
     DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION
     DODDABALLAPURA - 561 203

4.   SRI T MUNIYAPPA
     S/O LATE SRI THIMMAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS
     R/AT KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE
     VIJAYAPURA HOBLI
     DEVANAHALLI TALUK
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110

                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.DEVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4;
    SMT. VANI H, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.11.2020 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA IN WP NO.37993/2015 (SC-ST); AND b) GRANT
SUCH OTHER DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS
FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, INCLUDING
COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

    THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                 3


                         JUDGMENT

Sri. G.B.Nandish Gowda, learned counsel for Sri. R.B.

Sadashivappa, learned counsel for the appellants.

Sri. N. Devendra, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

Smt. Vani H., learned Additional Government Advocate for

respondent Nos.1 to 3.

This intra Court appeal has been filed against the order

dated 17.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge by which

the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that the land measuring 2 acres in Sy.No.64(old) 76

(new) situated at Kommasandra Village, Vijayapura Hobli,

Bengaluru was granted to one Narayanappa - the original

grantee on 10.10.1953. The original grantee sold the land to

Smt. Deviramma and thereafter the land was sold twice i.e., on

29.05.1968 and 15.01.1970. Thereafter the land was sold once

again on 18.06.1971. The legal heirs of the original grantee after

a delay of 44 years filed a petition under the provisions of the

Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition

of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to

as 'the Act' for short). Seeking restoration of land granted which

was alienated in violation of the provisions of the Act.

3. The Assistant Commissioner by an order dated

19.02.2010 rejected the claim of the legal representatives of the

original grantee. The Deputy Commissioner, by an order dated

20.04.2015 allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed

by the Assistant Commissioner. The learned Single Judge has

allowed the writ petition. In view of the aforesaid factual

background, this appeal has been filed.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at

length.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of

'NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA &

ANOTHER', (2020) 14 SCC 232 and 'VIVEK M.HINDUJA VS

M.ASWATHA', (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC, has clearly held that

any action either on the application of the grantee or the legal

representatives of the grantee or suo motu for restoration of the

lands in favour of the grantee or his legal representatives is

required to be made within a reasonable period.

6. In the instant case, admittedly, the first sale was

made in the year 1962 and thereafter the last sale was made on

28.06.1971. Admittedly, after a period of 44 years, the legal

representatives of the original grantee had invoked the

provisions of the Act. The learned Single Judge, thereafter

rightly, held that the proceedings ought to have been initiated

by a reasonable time and the same not having been done, the

initiation of the proceedings is vitiated under law. Moreover, no

explanation for making the application for restoration after a

belated period of 44 years has been furnished.

7. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any

merit in the appeal. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE Mds