Karnataka High Court
Sri Rachaiah vs Sri Ramegowda on 3 January, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. NO.1095 OF 2022 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RACHAIAH
S/O LATE KENGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
2. SMT. DODDAMMA
D/O LATE KENGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
3. SMT. SUMATHI
D/O LATE KENGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
4. SMT. SHASHIKALA
D/O LATE KENGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
5. SRI. CHANDRA
S/O LATE KENGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
6. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O LATE KENGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.
2
7. SMT. MAYAMMA
W/O LATE KENGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
G B SARGUR VILLAGE
HAMPAPURA HOBLI, H D KOTE TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. MUNIRAJ V, ADV., FOR
MR. UMA SHANKAR L, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. RAMEGOWDA
S/O RAMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
RESIDING AT G B SARGUR VILLAGE
HAMPAPURA HOBLI
H D KOTE TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HUNSUR SUB DIVISION
HUNSUR-570005.
4. SRI. GOVINDAPPA
S/O VENKATEGOWDA, AGED MAJOR
GANGADAHOSAHALLI GRAMA
HAMAPAPURA HOBLI
H D KOTE TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA FOR R2 & R3)
3
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 23.09.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP
No.4210/2020 (SC/ST) BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra Court appeal has been filed against an
order dated 23.09.2022 passed by the learned Single
Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the
respondent No.1 has been allowed.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly
stated are that the land bearing Sy.No.12/9
measuring 4 acres situated at Mellahalli Village was
granted in favour of Mugaiah @ Kengaiah on
17.12.1955. The aforesaid land was conveyed by
registered sale deed dated 28.04.1975 which inturn
was conveyed in favour of respondent No.1 by a
registered sale deed dated 06.08.1984. The legal
representatives of deceased original grantee filed an
application under Section 5 of the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition
of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act') on 23.06.2007 for resumption
and restoration of the land. The Assistant
Commissioner dismissed the application. Against the
order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the legal
representatives of original grantee filed an appeal.
The Deputy Commissioner, by an order dated
19.05.2009, remitted the matter to the Assistant
Commissioner to ascertain whether the condition
imposed prohibiting alienation of land was for a period
of 15 years or 20 years. The Assistant Commissioner,
by an order dated 27.04.2015, restored the land in
favour of the State Government. The Deputy
Commissioner, by an order dated 05.11.2019,
dismissed the appeal. The aforesaid orders passed by
the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner were assailed in a writ petition. The
learned Single Judge, by taking into account the well
settled legal position, has allowed the writ petition and
has quashed the orders passed by the Deputy
Commissioner as well as the Assistant Commissioner.
In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has
been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the learned Single Judge grossly erred in not
appreciating that the lands in question were sold in
violation of the condition of grant. It is further
submitted that the transaction in question was illegal
and it was hit by the provisions of the Act.
4. We have considered the submissions made on
both sides 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 be dismissed on that
ground. Similar view was taken by the Supreme
(2020) 14 SCC 232
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. Admittedly, in the instant case, the
lands were granted on 17.12.1955 which was
purchased by the respondent No.1 on 06.08.1984.
After a period of 28 years, an application seeking
resumption of the land has been filed. No plausible
explanation was given for the inordinate delay of 28
years in making the application for resumption.
5. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition
referred to in preceding paragraph, the appellant is
not entitled to seek resumption of land. The learned
(2020) 14 SCC 228
Single Judge, while taking note of the well settled legal
position, has set aside the orders passed by the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner. Therefore, the order passed by the
learned Single Judge does not call for any interference
in this intra Court appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
Consequently, pending interlocutory application
is also disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV
