Karnataka High Court
Narasimhaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 October, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. NO.503 OF 2021 (SC/ST)
IN
W.P.No.42821 OF 2018 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
NARASIMAHAIAH
S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/A BEGUR VILLAGE
SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562129.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. SHIVASHANKAR K, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001
REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PODIUM BLOCK, B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560001.
2
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION
DODDABALALPURA
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
4. SRI. NARAYANAPPA
S/O NANJAPPA
R/A SONNALLIPURA VILLAGE
SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114.
5. SRI. MUNIBACHAPPA
S/O MUNISHAMAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
a). SMT. NARAYANAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIBACHAPPA.
b). SRI. CHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIBACHAPPA
c). SRI. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE MUNIBACHAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S.
c1) SMT. ANJANAMMA
W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
d). SRI. RAMESH
S/O LATE MUNIBACHAPPA.
(a) TO (d) AND c1 ARE
R/AT YENUGUNTE VILLAGE
SULIBELE HOBLI
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114.
e). SRI. MUNNEGOWDA
S/O LATE MUNIBACHAPPA
NEAR SYNDICATE BANK
3
KORAMANGALA DIVISION
BENGALURU-560034.
6. SRI. B.R. SRINIVASA
S/O LATE B. RAMAIAH
FLAT NO.410
MANGAM ELITE APARTMENTS
80 FT ROAD, HSR LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560102.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. M. MOHAN KUMAR, ADV., FOR C/R6
MRS. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G. AGA FOR R1, R2 & R3)
---
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.42821/2018 (SC-
ST) DATED 16.03.2021. SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/R2 IN LND.SC.ST(A).05/2005-
06 DATED 20.05.2017 BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE
R3 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-F. SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE R3/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN CASE NO.
PTCL.SR.50/2003-04 DATED 10.12.2004 BY ALLOWING THE
PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
JUDGMENT
Mr.Shivashankar K., learned counsel for the
appellant.
Smt.Namitha Mahesh B.G., learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.
Mr.M.Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for the
respondent No.6.
This intra Court appeal has been filed against
the order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the learned
Single Judge 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 one Narasimhaiah was granted
land measuring 2 acres in Sy.No.35 new Sy.No.35/P3
of Beguru Village, Sulibele Hobli, Hosakote Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District in the year 1959-60. The
aforesaid land was alienated under a registered sale
deed dated 15.02.1966 in favour of respondent No.4
and thereafter was re-conveyed on 24.06.1969 and
23.12.1995. After a period of more than 17 years, on
25.04.1997, the appellant filed an application seeking
resumption of the land under the provisions of the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, by an order
dated 16.09.2000, allowed the application preferred
by the appellant. Being aggrieved by the same, the
respondent Nos.5 and 6 preferred an appeal before the
Deputy Commissioner, who by an order dated
29.04.2003 remanded the matter to the Assistant
Commissioner. Thereafter, the Assistant
Commissioner dismissed the petition of the appellant.
Thereupon, an appeal was preferred by the appellant
before the Deputy Commissioner, who by an order
dated 06.08.2007 allowed the appeal. The order
passed by the Deputy Commissioner was assailed by
the respondent No.6 in a writ petition before the
learned Single Judge which was allowed and the
matter was remanded back to the Deputy
Commissioner, who by an order dated 20.05.2017
dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the appellant
preferred a writ petition which was dismissed by the
learned Single Judge by an order dated 16.03.2021.
In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has
been filed.
4. 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.
5. 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 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
R.P.No.393/2022
(2020) 14 SCC 232
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.
6. In the instant case, the proceeding under the
Act has been initiated after a delay of more than 17
years. Thus, the proceeding initiated under the Act
suffers from delay and laches for which no
explanation has been offered. The learned Single
(2020) 14 SCC 228
Judge has therefore, rightly dismissed the petition on
the ground of delay.
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.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
