Karnataka High Court
Smt. Susheelamma @ Susheela vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 January, 2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL No.352 OF 2023 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT. SUSHEELAMMA @ SUSHEELA,
D/O. LATE SHARADAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
C/O. DIVYA STORES, 12TH B MAIN,
BANGALORE-560 010.
PRESENTLY R/AT No. 24,
D BLOCK, NGO 'S' QUARTERS,
6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 010.
2 . SRI. SRINIVASA,
S/O. LATE SHARADAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
No. 1087, 66TH CROSS,
8TH B MAIN ROAD,
5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 010,
PRESENTLY R/AT No. 24,
'D' BLOCK, NGO 'S' QUARTERS,
6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 010.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI GANGI REDDY B. V., ADVOCATE)
-2-
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING,
AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
PODIUM BLOCK,
BANGALORE-560 001.
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
5. SRI. KOTHANUR M. THAMMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
S/O. LATE MINISHAMAPPA,
R/AT BAGALUR VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK,
BANGALORE-562 157.
6. SRI. R. DEVENDRA
S/O. A. RAJANNA,
R/AT VEERABHADRANAPALYA,
DODDABALLAPUR TOWN,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.
7. SRI. R. CHANDRANNA
S/O. A. RAJANNA,
R/AT VEERABHADRANAPALYA,
DODDABALLAPUR TOWN,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.
-3-
8. SRI. R. CHETAN KUMAR
S/O. A. RAJANNA,
R/AT VEERABHADRANAPALYA,
DODDABALLAPUR TOWN,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.
9. SMT. SHARADAMMA @ SHOBHA
D/O. A. RAJANNA,
No. 222, 1ST CROSS,
MANJUNATHA LAYOUT,
NAGASHETTIHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 094.
10 . SMT. KALYANAKUMARI,
W/O. SRI. SUDHAKAR,
KANTEERAVANAGAR,
DASARAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 057.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI R. PURUSHOTHAMA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI P.V. CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI K. SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI V.F. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R8;
SRI RAJANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R9 & R10)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 13/02/2023 MADE
IN WP 1776/2012 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND
GRANT THE APPELLANTS ALL THE RELIEFS WHICH THEY HAVE
PRAYED FOR IN THE CASE No.SCST(A) 131/2010-11 MARKED AT
ANNEXURE-A AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS
INCLUDING A DIRECTION TO THE CONTESTING RESPONDENTS
TO PAY THE APPELLANTS THE COST OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)
Heard learned advocate Mr. B.V. Gangi Reddy for the
appellants, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer
Akbar for respondent Nos.1 to 3, learned advocate Mr. P.
Purushothama for learned advocate Mr. P.V. Chandra Shekar for
respondent No.4, learned advocate Mr. K. Shivashankar for
respondent No.5, learned advocate Mr. V.F. Kumbar for
respondent Nos.6 to 8 and learned advocate Mr. Rajanna for
respondent Nos.9 and 10.
2. This intra Court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, 1961 is directed against the order in Writ Petition
No.1776 of 2012 dated 13.02.2023.
3. The appellants, being the legal heirs of the original grantee,
sought resumption of the land, which request was initially rejected
by the Assistant Commissioner. However, in appeal, the Deputy
Commissioner allowed the resumption. This order was challenged
in a writ petition. The Learned Single Judge, upon consideration,
set aside the order of resumption.
4. The facts leading to this appeal are that, the land bearing Old
Survey No.74 (New Survey No.34) measuring 4 Acres situated at
Bandikodigehalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluka and
land in Old Survey No.177 (New Survey No.451 measuring 2 Acres
situated at Bagalur Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluka
were granted in favour of Anjaneyappa. The said Anjaneyappa
executed a registered sale deed on 03.12.1969 in favour of the late
Munishamappa, the petitioner's father. The legal heirs of the
original grantee i.e., Sri. A. Rajanna and his children filed an
application for resumption of land under Section 5 of The
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of
Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. The said proceedings came
to be allowed by directing the resumption. The Deputy
Commissioner entertained the appeal filed by the petitioner and
ordered remand dated 08.12.2006 to the Assistant Commissioner
for fresh consideration.
5. The Assistant Commissioner on remand dismissed the
application. The original grantee has two children,
namely, Smt. Sharadamma and Sri. A. Rajanna. The appellants
claiming right through her mother Sharadamma filed appeal before
the Deputy Commissioner in appeal No.SC.ST(A)131/2010-11.
Sri. A. Rajanna and his sons filed appeal in Appeal
No.SC.ST(A)129/2010-11. The Deputy Commissioner by common
order dated 07.01.2012 allowed the appeal and ordered
cancellation of the sale deed and the restoration of the land in
question. However, as the land was already acquired by KIADB,
the compensation was directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the
original grantee.
6. This order was challenged in writ petition by the legal heirs of
the purchaser i.e., the original writ petitioner. Learned Single
Judge by judgment and order dated 13.02.2023 set aside the order
of the Deputy Commissioner and directed KIADB to release
compensation in favour of the petitioners therein. The present
appeal is by the grandchildren of the original grantee, Sri.
Anjaneyappa claiming right through Smt. Sharadamma, the original
grantee.
7. Sri. B.V. Gangi Reddy, learned advocate appearing for the
appellants submits that the writ petition was not maintainable. It is
submitted that the resumption order was passed by common order
while dealing two appeals. The Deputy Commission has passed
common order in Appeal No.SC.ST(A)129/2010-11 and Appeal
No.SC.ST(A)131/2010-11. Both appeals were filed claiming
independent right, title and interest in the property in question. The
writ petition was filed to challenge the order passed in Appeal
No.SC.ST(A)129/2010-11 and the order of learned Single Judge
has set aside the order in this appeal. Whereas the order in
Appeal No.SC.ST(A)131/2010-11 was never under challenge and
the order of resumption to that extent at the instance of the
appellants, remains unchallenged. It is submitted that, in that view,
the order in appeal at the instance of the appellants has reached
finality and the order of restitution remains.
8. Learned advocate further submits that in view of the land in
question is already acquired by the KIADB, the compensation is
paid to the appellants. The direction by the learned Single Judge
to pay compensation to the purchaser/writ petitioner is incorrect.
9. Learned advocate further submits that the delay and laches
in filing the application under Section 4 read with Section 5 of the
Act of 1978 was never raised before the authorities by the
purchaser. Hence, the said ground is not permissible to be
agitated in the writ petition. The order of the learned Single Judge
on the grounds of delay and laches is not sustainable.
10. Learned advocate further submits that there was no
opportunity to explain the delay before setting aside the order of
the Deputy Commissioner by the learned Single Judge. Learned
advocate has further reiterated the grounds urged before the
learned Single Judge on the scheme of grant and non-applicability
of the limitation.
11. Learned advocate for the appellants further submits that
when the order of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged in
part, setting aside the entire order by the learned Single Judge is in
excess of the prayer made in the writ petition. To that extent, the
order of the learned Single Judge is unsustainable.
12. Smt. Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that in view
of the amendment to the Act of 1978, the limitation for application
for resumption of land is not applicable.
13. Sri. P. Purushothama, learned advocate appears on behalf
of Sri. P.V. Chandra Shekar, learned advocate for respondent No.4
- KIADB. Sri. K. Shivashankar, learned advocate appearing for
respondent No.5.
14. The legal heir of the purchaser submits that the order of the
learned Single Judge in rejecting the application for restitution is as
per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
ANOTHER reported in 2018 (1) KAR L.R. 5 (SC) as the order of
the learned Single Judge is in conformity with the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned advocate has to dismiss the
appeal.
15. Learned advocate Mr. V.F. Kumbar appears for respondent
Nos.6 to 8 and Sri. Rajanna, learned advocate appearing for
respondent Nos.9 and 10 reiterates the submissions of the learned
advocate for the appellants.
16. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties, it is apparent that the land in question was granted
in favour of Sri. Anjaneyappa in 1954, who subsequently
transferred it to Munishamappa by way of sale on 03.12.1969. An
application for resumption and cancellation of the sale was filed
under the relevant provisions of the Act on 14.06.2004. The
application was initially entertained, and an order of resumption
was passed. The purchaser, Munishamappa, filed an appeal,
whereupon the Deputy Commissioner remanded the matter to the
- 10 -
Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. During the
pendency of the appeal, the appellants sought impleadment in the
proceedings, which was granted pursuant to the directions in the
writ petition. On remand, however, the Assistant Commissioner
rejected the resumption application.
17. Against the order of rejection, two appeals were preferred
before the Deputy Commissioner, one by the appellants and
second by Sri. A. Rajanna and his children, who are respondents
Nos. 6 to 10. The Deputy Commissioner passed common order, as
both appeals arose from the order dated 12.11.2010 passed by the
Assistant Commissioner.
18. The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated
07.01.2012. It is pertinent to note that the prayer sought to quash
the order passed in Appeal No.SC.ST(A)129/2010-11 dated
07.01.2012, while the appellants in both appeals were arrayed as
respondents in the writ petition. Although the prayer did not
specifically include the Appeal No.SC.ST(A)131/2010-2011, it
cannot be construed that there was no challenge to the latter
appeal. Additionally, the appellants were named as respondents in
the writ petition and actively participated in the proceedings. Added
to that, no such ground was raised in the writ petition.
- 11 -
19. The learned Single Judge has examined the maintainability
of the application in both appeals. The objection raised regarding
the non-inclusion of the other appeal number is merely a hyper-
technical issue, which must be treated as a typographical error.
The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge deals both
appeals and binds all the parties.
20. In so far as maintainability of application for resumption of
land, it is no longer res integra, in view of the series of orders
passed by this Court regarding the time frame within which
applications under Sections 4 and 5 of the 1978 Act may be
entertained for the restoration and restitution of land. The
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court have been duly considered in Writ Appeal No.
210 of 2023 dated 25.11.2024. In the aforesaid judgment,
reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra). Further, reference is made to
the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Smt. Gouramma alias Gangamma vs. Deputy Commissioner,
Haveri in Writ Appeal No. 100101 of 2024, decided on 29.07.2024.
The judgment also refers to the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of
India vs. N. Murugesan [(2022) 2 SCC 25].
- 12 -
21. This Bench, after a detailed analysis of the aforementioned
judgments and the provisions of the 1978 Act, has examined the
distinction between 'delay and laches' and 'limitation'. It is held that
'limitation' refers to the time prescribed by the legislature within
which an action must be taken, while the concepts of 'delay and
laches' operate differently. It is further held that the principles
governing delay and laches overlap, but delay and laches also
have an equitable aspect. Delay serves as the genus, while laches
and acquiescence are its species. The jurisprudential concepts of
delay, laches, and acquiescence carry their own meanings and
connotations, often differing from the mere expiration of the time
period prescribed by the statutory limitation. Limitation governs the
initiation of legal action or the filing of proceedings, whereas laches
involves an element of culpability in allowing time to pass without
commencing legal action.
22. In the present case, the grant was made in 1954, and the
sale occurred in 1969. The application for resumption was filed in
2004, 35 years after the execution of the registered sale deed and
25 years from the 1978 Act coming into force.
- 13 -
23. In view of the factual circumstances and the legal position
stated above, the restoration of land cannot be permitted after a
period of 25 years. The issue of laches is relevant in this context. It
would be highly unreasonable, unjust and inequitable as well as
contrary to the law, to grant any relief to the original grantee by
allowing the restitution of land after such a prolonged delay. After
the lapse of such a long period, it is not permissible to declare the
transfer of land as null and void.
24. For the reasons mentioned above, no error is discernible in
the order passed by the learned Single Judge that would justify
interference by this Court. Consequently, the appeal is hereby
dismissed.
In view of dismissal of main appeal, pending interlocutory
applications stand disposed of as not surviving.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
VBS
