Karnataka High Court
Smt. S Manjula vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 September, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST 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.702 OF 2022 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. S. MANJULA
W/O KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED 67 YEARS.
2. SMT. GEETHA
D/O KRSIHNAMURTHY
AGED 53 YEARS.
3. SRI. ASHOK
S/O KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED 47 YEARS.
4. SMT. RAJALAKSHMI
D/O KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED 39 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
SANGOLLI RAYANNA ROAD
CHALLAKERE
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577501.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. SIDDAPPA B.M. ADV.,)
2
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
CHITRADURGA 577501.
2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION
CHITRADURGA 577502.
3. SRI. C. RATHNAIAH
S/O C. NARASIMHAPPA
AGED 65 YEARS
R/O LASKHMINARASIMHASWAMY NILAYA
OPP. EDGA MAIDANA, BENGALURU ROAD
CHALLAKERE TOWN 577522
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT..
4. SRI. A.R. VASAVI
W/O A. RANGANATH BABU
AGED 57 YEARS.
5. SRI. A. ASHOK KUMAR
S/O A. RAMADAS
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
RES. 4 & 5 ARE
R/O VASAVI COLONY
NEAR BENGALURU ROAD
CHALLAKERE TOWN 577522
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
6. SRI. J.V. SOMASHEKARAPPA
S/O LATE J. VEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O GANDHINAGAR
CHALLAKERE TOWN 577522
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
7. SRI. B. JITHENDRA
S/O B.H. SRINIVASGUPTA
3
AGED 42 YEARS
R/O 2ND CROSS, BELLARY ROAD
CHALLAKERE TOWN 577522.
8. SRI. B.K. BHAKTHAVATHSALAM
S/O B. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O OPP. JAYARAM THEATER
PAVAGADA ROAD
CHALLAKERE TOWN 577522.
9. SRI. B. EAKANATHACHARI
S/O BHASKARACHARI
AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS.
10. SRI. B. CHANDRACHARI
S/O BHAKSARACHARI
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS.
11. SRI. B. RAJASHEKHARACHARI
S/O BHASKARACHARI
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 9 TO 11 ARE
R/AT BANASHANKARI TEMPLE ROAD
VISHWAKARMA NILAYA
CHALLAKERE 577522
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
No.1081/2015 (SC-ST) DATED 03.02.2020 AND DISMISS THE
WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT No.4 TO 9 BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
4
HEARING, THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra Court appeal arises out of a order
dated 03.02.2020 passed by learned Single judge, by
which writ petition preferred by respondents No.4 has
been allowed.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal
briefly stated are that the land bearing Sy.No.251/1a
and 251/1b situate at Nagarangeri Village, Challakere
Taluk was granted to one Kariyappa on temporary
lease basis under Grow More Food Scheme in the year
1943. The Deputy Commissioner by an order dated
25.11.1955 confirmed the lease in favour of the
original grantee and thereafter, saguvali chit was
issued on 11.12.1955.
3. The land in question was alienated on
30.10.1967. Thereafter by an order dated 08.12.1996
Tahsildar converted the same for non agricultural
purpose. After a period of 16 years, the Assistant
Commissioner under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of
Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act' for short) initiated a proceeding under
Section 4 and 5 of the Act in the year 1996. The
Assistant Commissioner passed an order on
23.04.1999 which was set aside in appeal by the
Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 20.06.2012.
The aforesaid order was challenged in a writ petition.
The learned Single Judge by an order dated
03.02.2020 quashed the order dated 20.06.2011
passed by the Deputy Commissioner and allowed the
writ petition. In the aforesaid factual background this
appeal has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the order of Assistant Commissioner
was not challenged and the learned Single Judge has
not examined the validity of the order passed by the
Deputy Commissioner and therefore, the matter be
remitted to learned Single Judge for a fresh
adjudication.
5. We have considered the submissions made
by learned counsel for the petitioner 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.
6. In the instant case, admittedly the
proceeding was initiated suo motu after an inordinate
delay of 16 years. There is no explanation for
inordinate delay of 16 years in initiation of proceeding
under the Act. The learned Single Judge has
therefore, rightly quashed the order dated 20.06.2012
passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The land in
question could not have been directed to be resumed
in favour of the grantee as the proceedings were
initiated after an inordinate delay of 16 years. In any
case, in view of law laid down by full bench of this
court in 'MUNNAIAH AND OTHERS VS. DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS', ILR 2021 KAR
3169 the provisions of the Act have no application to
the land in question as the same is diverted land.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find
any merit in this appeal. The same fails and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
