Sri Rama v. the Special Deputy Commissioner
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed writ appeals filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act against the Single Judge's order upholding the lower authorities. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi, the Court held that while Section 5 of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes Land Act does not prescribe a limitation period, applications or actions must be taken within a reasonabl
What did the court decide?
Writ appeals dismissed; interlocutory applications disposed of.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2019
PRESENT
R
THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT APPEAL NO.372/2019 (SCST) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.373/2019 (SCST), WRIT APPEAL NO.374/2019 (SCST) AND WRIT APPEAL NO.375/2019 (SCST)
IN W.A.NO.372/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI MUNIMADA @ MUNIMADAPPA S/O LATE VENKATA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRS SRI GUPALAPPA S/O LATE MUNIMADA @ MUNIMADAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT BALLUR VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 106
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 can be filed after a lapse of 27 years despite the ab
Whether the reasonableness of time for invoking Section 5 remains the same irrespective of whether the grant imposed a permanent or limited prohibition on alienation.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Munimada @ Munimadappa
- appellant
Muniya @ Muniyappa
- appellant
Buddiga
- appellant
Rama
- respondent
State of Karnataka
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Karnataka HC
- Decided on
- · July
- Registered
- Case no.
- WA/375/2019
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court