Karnataka High Court
Sri Siddappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 28 September, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH 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.1338 OF 2021 (SC/ST)
IN
W.P.NO.45562 OF 2012 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SIDDAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKASIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.37/9
NEAR MOOKAMBIKA TEMPLE
HOSAKEREHALLI VILLAGE
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-560061.
... APPELLANT
(BY MS. KEERTANA SWAMYNATHAN, ADV., FOR
MR. YESHU BABA R. MISHRA, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT
BENGALURU-560009.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION
BENGALURU-560009.
2
3. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU-560009.
4. SRI. PAPARAJU
S/O VENKATARAMANAIAH, MAJOR
R/AT HOSAKEREHALLI
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-560061.
5. SRI. V. ANANDA NAIDU
S/O V. CHENGALRAYA NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/A NO.119, SY NO.17
8TH CROSS, 30TH MAIN
BANASHANKARI II STAGE
BENGALURU-560070.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. ABHINA Y.T. ADV., FOR C/R5
MR. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1-R3)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 21/06/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.45562/2012 AND CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises from an order dated
21.06.2021 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 bearing Sy.No.7
situated at Hosakerehalli Villge, Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk was granted in favour of the
father of the appellant on 30.10.1961. The
respondent No.4 sold 1 acre and 15 guntas of the
granted land to one Sri.Nagendra Prasad vide sale
deed dated 04.01.1999 and granted land to an extent
of 1 acre 15 guntas was mutated in the name of
respondent No.5. A confirmation deed was also
executed on 15.06.2008. Thereafter, the said
Sri.Nagendra Prasad on 09.06.2003 sold the land in
favour of respondent No.5. 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 said
application was allowed on 30.01.2012. The Deputy
Commissioner by an order dated 06.08.2012 set aside
the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed 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 the appellant. 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.
Since, the appeal is dismissed, all pending I.A.s
do not survive for consideration, the same are
accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
