Karnataka High Court
G Anil Kumar vs Sadashiva Reddy on 13 October, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH 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.892 OF 2021 (SC/ST)
IN
W.P.NO.3013 OF 2019 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1. G. ANIL KUMAR
S/O LATE GURAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT KODATHI VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK.
2. VATSALA MURTHY
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
W/O NARASIMAHA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT NO 81, 19TH CROSS
KAGGADASAPURA
C V RAMAN NAGAR POST
BENGALURU - 560038.
3. S. KRISHNAVENI
D/O MUNINAINAPPA @ M G SHANKAR
MAJOR
R/A NO 26, 3RD CROSS
NARAYANAPPA GARDEN
2
TAVAREKERE, NEAR LAKSHMI THEATRE
MADIVALA POST, BENGALURU - 560029.
4. SHASHIKALA
D/O LATE MUNIYELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT 132/1, FLAT NO.103
SKT MANSION, 13TH MAIN
4TH CROSS, 3RD STAGE
KODIHALLI, BENGALURU - 560008.
5. VEENAMMA
W/O LATE RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT KODATHI VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI
CARMARAM POST, BENGALURU - 560035.
6. S. ANANTHA
S/O LATE KAVERAMMA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/A NO A7/1
KPWD QUARTERS
JEEVABHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE.
7. K.M. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE CHIKKA MADDURA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO 181, KODATHI GATE
VARTHUR HOBLI, CARMELARAM POST
BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560035.
8. SAGAYA SHANTHI
D/O LATE MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO 360, 8TH CROSS
6TH MAIN, M S R NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560054.
9. JESSI
D/O LATE MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
3
R/AT NO 32, 1ST MAIN, NEW GUDDADAHALLI
GOVERNMENT ELECTRIC FACTORY
BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU - 560026.
10. NIRMALA
D/O LATE MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT NO 113, AMBEDKAR COLLEGE MAIN ROAD
R T NAGAR POST, KAVAL BYRASANDRA
BENGALURU - 560032.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. BALARAJ M.V. ADV.,)
AND:
1. SADASHIVA REDDY
S/O LATE A.P. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT AGARA VILLAGE, HSR LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560102.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGLAURU NORTH SUB DIVISION
BENGALURU 560009.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGLAURU EAST TALUK
K R PURAM, BANGALORE DISTRICT
BANGALORE 560036.
5. CHENNARAYAPPA @ APPAJAPPA
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED MAJOR
R/A CHIKKANNAMMA TEMPLE STREET
BANGALORE 560002.
4
6. VENKATASWAMY
S/O MUNISWAMY
AGED MAJOR
R/A NO. 39/1, 4TH MAIN
5TH CROSS, S.R. NAGAR
BANGALORE 560002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. L. VENKATARAMA REDDY, ADV., FOR C/R1
MR. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1-R4)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.3013/2019
(SC/ST) DATED 19.07.2021. TO REMIND THE MATTER
BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR FRESH
CONSIDERATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
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.1 has been allowed. In order to
appreciate the appellants' 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.
38/2 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas situated at
Kodathi Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk
was granted in favour of Begur Shambugaiah on
03.07.1929. The aforesaid land was alienated in
favour of respondent No.1 under a registered sale
deed dated 30.06.1989. Some time in the year 2012,
after a period of 23 years, the legal representatives 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 dismissed by
the Assistant Commissioner by an order dated
20.04.2016. The appellants preferred an appeal
before the Deputy Commissioner who inturn
remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner
for fresh consideration by an order dated 14.11.2018.
The order of remand passed by the Deputy
Commissioner was assailed by the respondent No.1 in
a writ petition. The writ petition preferred by the
respondent No.1 has been allowed by the impugned
order and the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner has been set aside and the order
passed by the Assistant Commissioner was affirmed
inter alia holding that the application for resumption
of land in question was made beyond reasonable
period. In the aforesaid factual background, this
appeal has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that within the period of non-alienation, the land in
question was sold on account of illiteracy of the wife of
original grantee. In support of aforesaid submission,
reliance has been placed on the decisions of this
Court in P. KAMALA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA1
AND SHIVARAJU & ORS. Vs. DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER2.
4. We have considered the submission made by
the learned counsel for the appellants 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 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
ILR 2019 KAR 3301
R.P.No.393/2022
(2020) 14 SCC 232
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, 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
(2020) 14 SCC 228
offered. The learned Single Judge has therefore,
rightly affirmed the order passed by 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
