Sri P Muniraju vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 12877 Kant

                           1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

                        PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                          AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

             W.A. NO.388 OF 2022 (SC/ST)
                          IN
             W.P.No.13984 OF 2019 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:

SRI. P. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE PILLAMUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT BANNIMANGALA VILLAGE
KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
                                         ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. Y.G. MITHUN KUMAR, ADV., FOR
    MR. NAGARAJU M, ADV.,)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
       REVENUE DEPARTMENT
       M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
       KANDHAYA BHAVAN
       K G ROAD,
       BENGALURU-560001.
                             2



3.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
     DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION
     DODDABALLAPURA-561203.

4.   SRI. CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA
     S/O LATE MUNIMARAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

5.   SRI. MUNINANJAPPA
     S/O LATE BACHAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

     BOTH ARE R/AT BANNIMANGALA VILLAGE
     KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.

                                    ... RESPONDENTS

(BY MRS. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G. AGA FOR R1-R3)
                       ---

     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 WP
No.13984/2019 DATED 26.11.2021 AND TO ALLOW THE
WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT HERE IN BY
GRANTING THE RELIEFS AS PRAYED. ALTERNATIVELY SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE WP No.13984/2019 DATED 26.11.2021 AND OF THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN
PROCEEDINGS No.LND SC/ST(A)01/2018 DATED 21.02.2019
VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WP TO CONFIRM THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT PROCEEDINGS
BEARING No.PTCL(DH) 45/2013-14 DATED 23.11.2014 VIDE
ANNEXURE-E & ETC.

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



                        JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal has been filed against

the order dated 26.11.2021 passed by the learned

Single Judge in W.P.No.13984/2019 by which the writ

petition preferred by the appellant has been

dismissed.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that the grandfather of appellant

was granted land measuring 4 acres in Sy.No.130, old

No.1 situated at Bannimangala Village, Kundana

Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District in

the year 1955. Thereafter, saguvali chit was issued by

the Tahsildar subject to condition that the land

should not be alienated for a period of 15 years.

However, land measuring 1 acre was alienated vide

sale deed dated 08.09.1969 and subsequently, land

measuring 2 acres 20 guntas was alienated vide sale

deed dated 06.07.1971. Thereafter, in the year 2013,

an application seeking resumption of land was filed.

The Assistant Commissioner, by an order dated

23.11.2017, allowed the application. The aforesaid

order was set aside in an appeal by the Deputy

Commissioner by an order dated 21.02.2019. The

appellant challenged the aforesaid order in a writ

petition wherein the learned Single Judge, by an order

dated 26.11.2021, has dismissed the petition. In the

aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been

filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that within the period of non-alienation, the land in

question was sold on account of illiteracy of the

original grantee. In support of aforesaid submission,

reliance has been placed on the decisions of this

Court in P. KAMALA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA1

ILR 2019 KAR 3301

AND SHIVARAJU & ORS. Vs. DEPUTY

COMMISSIONER2.

4. We have considered the submission made by

the learned counsel for the appellant and have

perused the record. The Supreme Court in

NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF

KARNATAKA AND OTHERS3 has held that 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)

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

R.P.No.393/2022

(2020) 14 SCC 232

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.ASHWATHA4 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, admittedly, the land was

granted in the year 1955 and the same was alienated

in the years 1969 and 1971. After a delay of 34 years

from the enactment of the Act, the application seeking

(2020) 14 SCC 228

resumption of the land was filed for which no

plausible explanation has been offered.

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find

any ground to differ with the view taken by the

learned Single Judge.

In the result, the appeal same fails and is hereby

dismissed.

6. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending

interlocutory application does not survive for

consideration and is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV