Karnataka High Court
N. Nagesh vs State Of Karnataka on 26 September, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH 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.67 OF 2022 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
N. NAGESH
S/O LATE T. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT INDA, RASANAHA L1I
VILLAGE, HEGGANAHALLI POST
KUNDANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT
(BY MRS. JYOTHI S.K. ADV., (ABSENT))
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
VISVESHWARAIAH TOWER
PODIUM BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
2
DODDABALLAPUR.
4. P. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE PATALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT THINDLU VILLAGE
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU.
5. SAROJAMMA
W/O P. NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT THINDLU VILLAGE
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU.
6. K. SUDHAKARA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
DIRECTOR OF M/S SHAPEL INVESTMENT
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.198
END MAIN, 2ND CROSS
KEB LAYOUT, SANJAYA NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 094.
7. CHANDRU ROYYUR
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
DIRECTOR OF M/S SHAPEL INVESTMENT
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.198
END MAIN, 2ND CROSS
KEB LAYOUT, SANJAYA NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 094.
... RESPONDENTS
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
3
09/12/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
WP NO.44376/2016 (SC-ST).
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises from an order dated
09.12.2021 passed by learned Single Judge by which
writ petition preferred by the appellant had been
dismissed.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal
briefly stated are that the land in old Sy.No.7
measuring 2 acres situated at Indarasanahalli Village,
Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk was granted on
17.10.1978. Thereafter, the property was transferred
in the name of the appellant and the land was
assigned a new survey No.7/P14 currently numbered
as Sy.No.91. The land was transferred in the year
1991 on death of his father. The appellant thereafter
transferred the land in favour of respondents No.4
and 5 by registered sale deed dated 25.06.1994 who
in turn alienated the same in favour of respondents
No.6 and 7 vide registered sale deeds dated
29.03.2005 and 09.01.2006. Thereafter, the appellant
filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition
of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. The Assistant
Commissioner directed resumption of the land in
favour of the appellant. Respondents No.6 and 7
thereupon filed an appeal. The Deputy Commissioner
by an order dated 23.07.2016 has allowed the appeal
preferred by Respondents No.6 and 7. The said order
was challenged by appellant in a writ petition, which
was dismissed by learned Single Judge.
3. We have considered the submissions 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 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.
4. Admittedly, in the facts of the case, there is
a delay of 15 years in filing the application seeking
resumption of the land for which no explanation has
been offered. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of
law, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly allowed the
appeal preferred by Respondents 6 and 7. We
therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the
order passed by the learned Single Judge.
In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
