Sri Venkatappa vs Deputy Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 12387 Kant

                              1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 12TH 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.891 OF 2021 (SC/ST)
                        IN
            W.P.NO.116 OF 2020 (SC/ST)

BETWEEN:

SRI. VENKATAPPA
S/O LATE NARAYANAPALLI
VENKATESH BHOVI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/O KONETI THMMANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT 563101.
                                     ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. MITHUN G.A. ADV.,)

AND:

1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
   KOLAR DISTRICT
   KOLAR 563101.

2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
   KOLAR SUB-DIVISION
   KOLAR TALUK
   KOLAR DISTRICT 573101.
                                2



3. TAHSILDAR
   SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
   KOLAR DISTRICT 563101.

4. SRI. V. NANJUNDAPPA
   S/O VENKATASWAMY
   AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
   R/AT AARIKUNTE VILLAGE
   MANIGANAHALLI POST
   SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
   KOLAR DISTRICT 563101.

                                            ... RESPONDENTS

(BY MR. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
                         ---

       THIS   WRIT   APPEAL   IS   FILED   U/S   4   OF   THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 19.07.2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.116/2020 (SC-ST).


       THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY,    ACTING       CHIEF    JUSTICE,     DELIVERED      THE
FOLLOWING:


                             JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal has been filed against

the order dated 19.07.2021 passed by the learned

Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by

the respondent No.4 has been allowed. In order to

appreciate the appellant's 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.8

and new Sy.No.8/P30 measuring 3 acres situated at

Ramapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk

was granted in favour of Narayanapalli Venkatesha

Bhovi on 10.05.1972. The aforesaid land was

alienated under registered sale deed dated

06.08.1992. Sometime in the year 2013, after a

period of 23 years, the legal representative 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 on 09.08.2018. Thereafter,

respondent No.4 preferred an appeal which was

dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner on

26.08.2019. The orders passed by the Deputy

Commissioner as well as the Assistant Commissioner

were assailed by the respondent No.4 in a writ

petition. The writ petition preferred by the respondent

No.4 has been allowed by the impugned order and the

orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the

Assistant Commissioner were quashed inter alia

holding that the application for resumption of land in

question was made after a delay of 23 years. 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 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 appellant and have

perused the record. The Supreme Court in

'NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF

KARNATAKA AND OTHERS' (2020) 14 SCC 232 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 23 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 quashed the orders passed by the Deputy

Commissioner as well as the Assistant 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

RV