Karnataka High Court
Sri. Muniswamappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 October, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. NO.86 OF 2022 (SC-ST)
IN
W.P. NO.47528 OF 2015 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MUNISWAMAPPA
S/O SRI. DODDAKADIRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
SMT. MUNIKADIRAMMA
SINCE DEAD REP. BY HER ONLY LR'S
SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O SRI. MUNISWAMAPPA.
2. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O SRI. MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
3. SRI. KADIRAPPA
S/O SRI. MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
CHAKARASANAHALLI VILLAGE
NARASAPURA HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563101.
2
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. VIVEK SUBBA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. PRASANNA KUMAR B.T. ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLAR SUB DIVISION, KOLAR-563101.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
KOLAR TALUK
KOLAR-563101.
5. SRI. S. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE ABBIAH
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
RESIDING AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU-5600080.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4
MR. DIWAKAR, ADV., FOR C/R5)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER, DATED 20/03/2020 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.47528/2015 (SC-ST).
AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.
3
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal has been filed against an
order dated 20.03.2020 passed by learned single
Judge, by which in a writ petition preferred by
respondent No.5, order dated 21.10.2015 passed by
the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for short), has
been quashed and the writ petition has been allowed.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal in
nutshell are, that on 13.05.1933, land bearing
Sy.No.144 measuring 2 acres, situate at
Chakkarasanahalli Village, Narasapura Hobli, Kolar
District, was granted in favour of one Muniga. The
legal representatives of original grantee alienated the
land in favor of one Krishnappa on 26.11.1983.
Thereafter, on or about 28.03.2008, after a period of
25 years, the legal representatives of original grantee
filed an application for restoration of the land under
Section 5(1) of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner
by an order dated 04.07.2013 rejected the application
filed by the legal representatives of original grantee.
3. They, thereafter filed an application before
the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner
who by an order dated 21.10.2015 allowed the appeal
and restored the land in favour of the legal
representatives of original grantee. The aforesaid
order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was
challenged in a writ petition. The learned Single
Judge of this Court by an order dated 20.03.2020
quashed the aforesaid order inter alia on the ground
that there was an inordinate delay of 25 years in filing
the application for resumption and allowed the writ
petition. In the aforesaid factual background, this
appeal has been filed.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
submitted that an opportunity to explain the delay
ought to have been given to the appellant and
therefore, the matter be remitted to the Assistant
Commissioner. However, learned Senior Counsel did
not indicate even a prima facie explanation for
inordinate delay of 25 years in filing the application
for resumption. In support of the contention that the
matter should be remitted to the Assistant
Commissioner, reference has been made to division
bench decisions of this Court in SMT. P. KAMALA v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS1 and
2019 (4) KCCR 3945 (DB)
SHIVARAJU & OTHERS v. DEPUTY COMISSIONER
& OTHERS2.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for
respondents have supported the order passed by the
learned single Judge.
6. We have considered the submissions made
on both sides and have perused the records. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in NEKKANTI RAMA
LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTHERS3 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
R.P. No.393/2022
(2020) 14 SCC 232
reasonable period of time. The Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble
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.
7. Admittedly, in the instant case, after
coming into force of the Act, land was alienated on
26.11.1983. After a period of 25 years, i.e., on
(2020) 14 SCC 228
28.03.2008, an application seeking resumption was
filed. In the proceeding before the Assistant
Commissioner, a plea that the proceeding for
resumption of land has been initiated after an
inordinate delay was raised. The Assistant
Commissioner after taking note of the said plea, held
as follows:
"In our opinion, the application of the
respondents should have been rejected on
the short ground that there was
considerable delay in filing the same and
thus it was not maintainable. Even if no
limitation is prescribed by the statute, all
acts have to be done within a reasonable
period of time."
8. Thus, the appellant had the opportunity to
explain the delay in initiating the proceeding for
resumption of the land before the Assistant
Commissioner. However, no explanation is offered.
Neither in the writ petition nor before us, any
explanation has been offered for inordinate delay of 25
years in initiating the proceeding under Section 5 of
the Act. The appellant was granted the opportunity to
explain the delay in the proceeding before the
Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, the division
bench decisions of this Court in SMT. P. KAMALA v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS and
SHIVARAJU & OTHERS v. DEPUTY COMISSIONER
& OTHERS (supra) have no application to obtaining
factual matrix of the case.
9. The Deputy Commissioner without taking
into account the inordinate delay in filing the
application seeking resumption of the land, allowed
the appeal. The learned Single Judge, therefore,
rightly set aside the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner on the ground that the application
seeking resumption of land was made belatedly after a
period of 25 years. Admittedly, there has been an
inordinate delay of 25 years in making the application
seeking resumption of the land, for which, no
explanation has been offered. We are not inclined to
grant the prayer for remand made on behalf of the
appellant, in the absence of even a prima facie
explanation of inordinate delay in making the
application seeking resumption of land.
10. 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 fails and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
