Karnataka High Court
Sri Chikkamantalappa vs The Assistant Commissioner 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.869 OF 2021 (SC/ST)
IN
W.P.No.43887 OF 2016 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. CHIKKAMANTALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O LATE MUNIPAPAIAH.
2. SMT. KAVERAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O LATE CHENNAPPA.
BOTH ARE R/AT
CHIKKANEKKUNDI VILLAGE
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562125.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. V. ANAND, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION
BANGALORE-560009.
2
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
K G ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.
3. SRI. CHIKKAPPILLA REDDY
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
a) SRI. RAMASWAMY REDDY
S/O LATE CHIKKAPILLA REDDY.
b). SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA.
c). SRI. CHIKKANARAYANA REDDY
S/O LATE CHIKKAPILLA REDDY.
d). SRI. GOPALA REDDY
S/O LATE CHIKKAPILLA REDDY.
3(a) TO (d) ARE RESIDING AT
NEKKUNDI DOMMASANDRA
MUSHASANDRA POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE-560087.
4. DR. PALAKSHA REDDY
S/O G.T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY
VINAYAKA TRANSPORT
GUNJUR VILLAGE AND POST
VARTHUR HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BENGALURU-560087.
5. SRI. BOMMA REDDY MURALI
MOHAN REDDY
S/O SHRI RAMA KOTI REDDY
HOUSE NO.3-72/ KUNDERU POST
3
KAKIPADU MANDAL
KRISHNA DISTRICT-521245
ANDHRA PRADESH.
REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER
SRI MALLIKARJUNA CHALLA
S/O BALAVEERA REDDY
FLAT NO.G-1, DSR EMERALD
5TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN ROAD
IBBALUR OUTER RING ROAD
BANGALORE-560103.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G. AGA FOR R1 & R2)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA W.P. NO.43887/2016
(SC-ST) DATED 27/02/2019 AND THEREBY ALLOW THIS
WRIT APPEAL. GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AND RELIEFS
AS THIS HON BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
JUDGMENT
Mr.V.Anand, learned counsel for the appellants.
Smt.Namitha Mahesh B.G., learned Additional
Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
This intra Court appeal has been filed against
the order dated 27.02.2019 passed by the learned
Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by
the appellants has been dismissed.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that one Munipapaiah was granted
land measuring 2 acres in Sy.No.119/Block IV of
Varthur Village and Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk on
25.02.1932. The aforesaid land was alienated under a
registered sale deed dated 03.06.1946 and thereafter
was re-conveyed in the years 1994 and 2010. After a
period of 32 years, sometime in the year 2011, the
appellants 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 25.09.2014, allowed the application preferred
by the appellants. Being aggrieved by the same, the
respondent No.5 preferred an appeal which was
allowed by the Deputy Commissioner by an order
dated 29.09.2015. The order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner was assailed by the appellants in a writ
petition before the learned Single Judge which has
been dismissed by an order dated 27.02.2019. In the
aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been
filed.
4. 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
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.
5. 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
ILR 2019 KAR 3301
R.P.No.393/2022
(2020) 14 SCC 232
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.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 32 years. Thus,
(2020) 14 SCC 228
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 dismissed the petition filed by the appellants.
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/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
