Smt. Chikkatmuniyamma vs The Deputy Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 11798 Kant

                           1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

                       PRESENT

            THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                         AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

             W.A. NO.574 OF 2022 (SC/ST)
                         IN
             W.P.No.8127 OF 2020 (SC/ST)


BETWEEN:

1.     SMT. CHIKKATMUNIYAMMA
       AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
       W/O LATE T. MUNIYELLAPPA.

2.     SURESH
       AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
       S/O LATE T. MUNIYELLAPPA.

3.     SRI. CHANDRAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
       S/O LATE T. MUNIYELLAPPA.

       NOS.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT
       TUBARAHALLI VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI
       BENGALURU EAST TALUK
       BENGALURU-560066.

4.     SRI. NARAYANASWAMY
       SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
                                2



a).    SMT. GIRIJA
       AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
       W/O LATE M. NARAYANASWAMY.

b).    KUMARI SAHANA
       AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
       D/O LATE M. NARAYANASWAMY.

c).    MASTER AKHILESH
       AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS
       S/O LATE M. NARAYANASWAMY.

       Nos.4(b) & (c) SINCE MINORS
       REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER/NATURAL
       GUARDIAN SMT. GIRIJA AND ARE
       RESIDING AT NO.51/1, 2ND CROSS
       VARTHUR MAIN ROAD,
       KAVERAMMA TEMPLE THUBARAHALLI,
       BENGALURU-560066.

                                     ... APPELLANTS
(BY MRS. MANJULA D, ADV., FOR
     MR. L. SRINIVASA BABU, ADV.,)

AND:

1.    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
      BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
      BANGALORE-560001.

2.    THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
      BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION
      BENGALURU-560001.

3.    SRI. KRUPANANDAN
      SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.

a)    SMT. JOTHISHWARI
      @ JOTHI RUBEN
      AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
                              3



      D/O LATE KRUPANANDAN R
      REPTD BY HER GPA HOLDER.

b).   SRI. VILANATHAN
      S/O LATE KRUPANANDAN R
      AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

c).   SMT. AMUDHAVENI
      D/O LATE KRUPANANDAN R
      AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

d).   SMT. SHASHIKALA
      D/O LATE KRUPANANDAN R
      AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

      NO.3(a) TO (d) ARE RESIDING AT
      NO.388, VASANTAH RUTHU
      I.T.P.L ROAD, BESIDE HYPER CITY
      KUNDANAHALLI GATE,
      BENGALURU-560037.

4.    PILLA REDDY
      AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
      S/O LATE ANNAIAH REDDY
      R/AT NO.6/4, OM SHAKTHI COMPLEX
      BEHIND ITPL ROAD,
      RAMAGONDANAHALLI POST
      TUBARAHALLI VILLAGE
      VARTHUR HOBLI,
      BENGALURU EAST TALUK.

5.    SRI. HARSHAD JAIN
      AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
      S/O SMT. F. RUKIYA BAI
      R/AT NO.384, OPPOSITE TO
      OM SHAKTHI COMPLEX, ITPL ROAD
      TUBARAHALLI,
      RAMAGONDANAHALLI POST
      BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
      BENGALURU-66.
                                4



6.   SMT. YEALLAMMA
     AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
     D/O LATE T. MUNIYELLAMMA
     W/O SRI. M. VENKATASWAMY
     R/AT ABBANNA PALYA
     C/O VENKATESH BUILDING
     NEAR YADAVANAHALLI,
     NERALUR POST
     ATTIBELE HOBLI,
     ANEKAL TALUK
     BENGALURU DISTRICT-562106.

7.   VAYALAT THOMAS ABRAHAM
     S/O LATE SRI. ABRAHAM
     AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
     R/AT NO.102,
     PARIMALA RESIDENCY
     B BLOCK, AECS LAYOUT
     BENGALURU-560037.
                                            ... RESPONDENTS

(BY MR. DAYANANDA K.G. ADV., FOR C/R3(a), R4 & R7)
                        ---

       THIS   WRIT   APPEAL   IS   FILED   U/S   4   OF   THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE ORDER DATED 06.06.2021 IN WP
No.8127/2020 (SC-ST) AND TO ALLOW THE WA AS PRAYED
FOR BY ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL.


       THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY,    ACTING       CHIEF    JUSTICE,     DELIVERED      THE
FOLLOWING:
                               5



                            JUDGMENT

Smt.Manjula D., learned counsel for the

appellants.

Mr.Dayananda K.G., learned counsel for the

respondent Nos.3(A), 4 and 7.

This intra Court appeal has been filed against

the order dated 06.06.2022 passed by the learned

Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by

the petitioners has been dismissed. 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 Sy.No.6/4 of

Thubarahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East

Taluk was granted in favour of Mr.Thimmappa @

Thimma on 10.05.1940. The aforesaid land was

alienated under a registered sale deed dated

07.12.1965 and thereafter was re-conveyed on

27.01.1975, 28.08.1982 and 13.04.1987. Some time

in the year 2005, after a period of 38 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 rejected by the Assistant

Commissioner by an order dated 09.03.2007.

Thereafter, the appellants preferred an appeal which

was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner by an order

dated 23.03.2009. The order passed by the Deputy

Commissioner was assailed by the respondent Nos.3

and 4 in a writ petition namely W.P.No.14973/2009,

wherein the matter was remanded to the Assistant

Commissioner for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the

Assistant Commissioner has allowed the petition filed

by the appellants on 05.02.2018. Aggrieved by the

same, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 preferred an appeal

before the Deputy Commissioner which was allowed

on 02.04.2019. Aggrieved by the orders of the Deputy

Commissioner, the appellants have preferred a writ

petition in W.P.No.8127/2019. The aforesaid writ

petition has been dismissed by the impugned order on

the ground of delay.

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

original grantee.

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 OTHERS1 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.ASHWATHA2 and it was held that whenever

limitation is not prescribed, the party ought to

approach the competent Court or Authority within a

(2020) 14 SCC 232

(2020) 14 SCC 228

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 38 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 rejected the petition preferred by the

appellants.

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