Sri C K Kanumaiah S/O Pujar ... vs Sri Dasaiah S/O Thippaiah Dead By ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1309 Kant

                                             -1-
                                                        WA No.4789 of 2012




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                          DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
                                           PRESENT
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                             AND
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A PATIL
                             WRIT APPEAL NO. 4789 OF 2012 (SC-ST)
                   BETWEEN:
                   1.      SRI. C.K. KANUMAIAH
                           S/O PUJAR CHALLAKERAIAH
                           DEAD BY LRS.

                   a.      SMT. DURGAMMA
                           SINCE DEAD

                   1(a)(1) SMT. GOWRAMMA
Digitally signed           W/O PAPANNA
by RUPA V                  D/O LATE KANUMAIAH & DURGAMMA
Location: High             AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
Court of
Karnataka                  R/AT. KURUDIHALLI
                           BALENAHALLI, CHALLAKERE
                           CHITRADURGA-577522.

                   1(a)(2) SMT. VENKATAMMA
                           D/O LATE KANUMAIAH
                           AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
                           R/AT. C.K. PURA, UNDER BOARD
                           BOARD COLONY, C.K. PURA
                           CHITRADURGA, CHITRADURGA-577522.

                   b.      SMT. JAYAMMA
                           W/O LATE C.K. KANUMAIAH
                           AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS.
                           R/AT JAGAJEEVANARAMNAGARA OLD TOWN
                           CHALLAKERE TOWN, CHITRADURGA DIST.

                                                              ...APPELLANTS
                   (BY SRI. AJAYKUMAR M, ADV., FOR
                       SRI. JAYANNA G.R. ADV.,)
                             -2-
                                       WA No.4789 of 2012




AND:
1.      SRI. DASAIAH
        S/O THIPPAIAH
        DEAD BY LRS.

(a)     SMT. YALLAMMA
        W/O LATE JALLAIAH
        AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
        R/AT BEHIND MUNICIPAL KALYANA MANTAPA
        GANDHINAGARA, CHALLAKERE-577522
        CHITRADURGA-DIST.

(b)     SRI. RAMDAS
        S/O LATE THIPPAIAH
        AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
        R/AT BEHIND MUNICIPAL KALYANA MANTAPA
        GANDHINAGARA, CHALLAKERE-577522
        CHITRADURGA-DIST.

2.      THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
        CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION
        CHITRADURGA-577501.

3.      THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
        CHITRADURGA DIST
        CHITRADURGA-577501.

                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. LAXMINARAYANA, AGA FOR R2 & R3
    SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADV., FOR R(a & b))

       THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.19482/2012 (SC/ST)
DATED 04/07/2012.

       THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                -3-
                                             WA No.4789 of 2012




                         JUDGMENT

Mr.Ajay Kumar M., learned counsel for the

appellants.

Mr.R.Shashidhara, learned counsel for the

respondent Nos.1(a) and (b).

With consent of the parties, the matter is heard

finally.

This intra Court appeal has been filed against an

order dated 04.07.2012 passed by the learned Single

Judge in W.P.No.19482/2012 by which the writ petition

preferred by the appellants has been dismissed.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that the land measuring 5 acres in

Sy.No.275, New No.648 situated at Challakere Village,

Chitradurga District, was granted to one Dasaiah. A

saguvali chit was issued in his favour on 09.05.1940.

The aforesaid land was alienated by registered sale deed

WA No.4789 of 2012

which was executed on 12.09.1963. After about a

period of 25 years from the date of coming into force of

the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), an

application was filed by the legal representatives of

deceased grantee seeking resumption of the land. The

aforesaid application was allowed by the Assistant

Commissioner by an order dated 05.11.2003. The

appellants who are the legal representatives of deceased

purchaser, filed an appeal which was dismissed by the

Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 24.10.2007.

The appellants thereupon challenged the aforesaid order

in a writ petition which was filed on 19.06.2012. The

said writ petition has been dismissed by the learned

Single Judge by an order dated 04.07.2012 on the

ground of delay and laches. In the aforesaid factual

background, this appeal has been filed.

WA No.4789 of 2012

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties at length.

4. No limitation has been prescribed for filing the

writ petition. However, a litigant should approach the

Court within reasonable time. What would be

reasonable time depends on the facts and

circumstances of each case. In the instant case, the

appellants had filed a writ petition nearly after a period

of 5 years from the date of the order passed by the

Deputy Commissioner. The appellants had explained

the aforesaid delay by stating that the appellants are old

and infirm persons and are widows as well as illiterates.

It was pleaded that the delay was caused on account of

their poverty and illiteracy in approaching the counsel

at Bangalore. The aforesaid explanation, in the facts

and circumstances of the case, was a sufficient

explanation. In our considered opinion, the delay was

WA No.4789 of 2012

non-fatal and was not such as to disentitle the

appellants to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

5. The Supreme Court in NEKKANTI RAMA

LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS1

has held that Section 5 of the 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

(2020) 14 SCC 232

WA No.4789 of 2012

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 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 Assistant Commissioner

and the Deputy Commissioner ought to have

appreciated that the application seeking resumption of

the land was filed after a period of 25 years from the

commencement of the Act. Thus, there was an

inordinate delay in filing the application seeking

resumption and no explanation was offered for the

aforesaid delay.

7. In view of the aforesaid well settled legal

proposition laid down by the Supreme Court, the

(2020) 14 SCC 228

WA No.4789 of 2012

application filed by the legal representatives of the

grantee ought not have been entertained. The orders

passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy

Commissioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

For the aforementioned reasons, order dated

04.07.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge as well

as orders dated 05.11.2003 and 24.10.2007 passed by

the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy

Commissioner, respectively are hereby quashed.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV