Karnataka High Court
Smt Yellamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 16 February, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Vijaykumar A Patil
-1-
WA No. 676 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.676 OF 2020 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT YELLAMMA
W/O LATE SRI. HUCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/AT KAIKONDRAHALLI VILLAGE,
CARMELARAM POST,
VARTHUR HOBLI, K.R. PURAM TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 035
2. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIYELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT KAIKONDRAHALLI VILLAGE,
CARMELARAM POST, VARTHUR HOBLI,
Digitally signed K.R. PURAM TALUK
by MADHURI S
Location: High BENGALURU - 560 035
Court of ...APPELLANTS
Karnataka
(BY SRI. SHAHEED PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT
BENGALURU - 560 009
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION
BENGALURU - 560 009
-2-
WA No. 676 of 2020
3. SMT. REVAMMA
W/O B.PUTTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
SINCE DECEASED
(DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED
04.07.2019 & 20.12.2019,
REPRESENTED BY LRS R4 TO R11
AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER
DATED 04.03.2020)
4. SRI SADASHIVAIAH
S/O B P RAJASHEKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
5. SMT.M.N.LALITHAMMA
D/O B.P.RAJASHEKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
6. SRI. B.S. PRASAD
S/O B.P. RAJASHEKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
7. SRI. B.S. PRADEEP
S/O B.P. RAJASHEKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
8. SRI. B.S. PRAMOD
S/O B.P. RAJASHEKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
9. SRI. B.P. MANJUNATHA
S/O B.M. PUTTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
9. SRI. B.P. SHIVASHANKARA
S/O B.M. PUTTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
10. SRI. UMA MAHESHA
S/O MRUTHYUNJAYA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
-3-
WA No. 676 of 2020
ALL ARE R/AT BELLANDUR VILLAGE,
BELLANDUR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK
VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 04.03.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P.NOS.17938/2014 AND 52651/2014 (SC-ST) AND
ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION
WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.Shaheed Pasha, learned counsel for
Sri.B.Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellants.
Heard on the question of admission.
2. In this intra court appeal, the appellants have
assailed the validity of the order dated 04.03.2020 passed
by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition
preferred by the appellants has been dismissed.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal
briefly stated are that the land bearing Sy.No.29/3
measuring 2 acres and 3 guntas situate in Kasavanahalli
Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru,
WA No. 676 of 2020
was granted to one Anekal Yallappa in the year 1949-50.
The legal representatives of the grantee sold the land by
registered sale deed dated 17.01.1952 to one Muniyappa.
4. After a period of 27 years from the date of
enactment of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), the legal
representatives of the grantee filed an application for
resumption of the land. The aforesaid application was
rejected by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated
31.07.2008. The aforesaid order was confirmed in the
appeal by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated
05.02.2018.
5. The appellants, who are the legal
representatives of the grantee challenged the orders
passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy
Commissioner in a writ petition. Learned Single Judge vide
order dated 04.03.2020 has dismissed the writ petition. In
WA No. 676 of 2020
the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been
filed.
6. We have considered the submission made by
the learned counsel for the appellants at length 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 Karnataka
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of
Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act' for short) 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
(2020) 14 SCC 232
WA No. 676 of 2020
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 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.
7. In the light of the aforesaid well settled legal
principles, we may advert to the facts in hand. In the
instant case, the land was admittedly alienated in the year
1952 and thereafter, the application seeking resumption of
the land was filed after a period of 27 years from coming
into force of the Act. Thus, there is an inordinate and
unexplained delay in filing the application for resumption.
The aforesaid inordinate delay has not been explained by
the appellants.
(2020) 14 SCC 228
WA No. 676 of 2020
8. In view of the well settled legal principles
referred to supra, the appellants are not entitled to any
relief. Learned Single Judge has therefore, rightly
dismissed the writ petition.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any
merits in this appeal. The same fails and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MDS
