Allowed

Sri. Gangadharappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2021WA/2885/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the appeal and quashed lower orders concerning the resumption of tribal land sold in violation of the 1978 Act. The court held that proceedings initiated after an 11-year delay were not within a reasonable time, despite the absence of a statutory limitation period, emphasizing that such beneficial legislation must be invoked promptly.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 10.10.2014 by the Single Judge and the preceding orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner are quashed.

Sri. Gangadharappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.2885 OF 2014 (SC/ST)

¶9

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO.45329 OF 2014 (SC/ST)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI GANGADHARAPPA S/O SRI BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O KODIHALLI, DAVENGERE TALUK, DAVENGERE DISTRICT-577001.

¶13

...APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI SATISH M. DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-01.

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVEGERE SUB DIVISION, DAVENEGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577001.

¶18

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVEGERE SUB DIVISION, DAVENEGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577001.

¶20

SRI HANUMANTHAPPA S/O SANNA HANUMANTHAPPA, R/O KODIHALLI, DAVENGERE TALUK, DAVENGERE DISTRICT-577001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R-1 TO R3 SRI PRASANNA B.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.45329/2014 (SC/ST).

¶24

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This intra-court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 taking exception to the order dated 10.10.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.45329/2014.

¶27

Brief facts of the case giving rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

¶28

(i) The land bearing Sy.No.63/10 measuring 1.00 acre situated in Kodihalli village, Davanagere

¶29

¶30

Taluk was granted under darkast at an upset price in favour of Sanna Hanumantha son of Obanna who belonged to scheduled tribe category on 25.1.1975 with a condition that the land shall not be alienated for a period of fifteen years.

¶31

(ii) The appellant purchased the land in question from the fourth respondent who is the son of original grantee by way of registered sale deed dated 12.10.1995.

¶32

(iii) The third respondent initiated suo-motu proceedings under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 for resumption of the land in view of the provision contained under Section 4 of the Act. The third respondent by order dated 19.8.2013 after holding that the land was granted land in terms of the provisions contained under Section 3 of the Act and the sale made after coming into force of the Act was void and as such, the land was liable to be resumed and restored to the original grantee or his legal representatives. Against the said order, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 5A of the Act before the second respondent. The second respondent passed an order dated 1.9.2014

¶33

¶34

dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. Taking exception to the same, the appellant has filed this appeal before this Court.

¶35

(iv) The learned Single Judge confirmed the order of resumption and restoration holding that the sale made in favour of the appellant by the legal representatives of the grantee was void. Hence, this appeal.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the alienation of the granted land was made by the fourth respondent in favour of the appellant by executing the registered sale deed dated 12.10.1995. It is further submitted that no time limit is prescribed for initiation of action under the Act, however, the same has to be initiated within a reasonable time. However, the proceedings under Section 5 of the Act was initiated in 2006 i.e. after the lapse of 11 years. In support of his submission, he placed a reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi -vs- State of Karnataka and another reported in ILR 2018 Kar. 1352 and a decision of the Hon'ble

¶37

¶38

Supreme Court in the case of Cheddi Lal Yadav and others -vs- Harikishore Yadav (d) thr. lrs and others reported in (2018) 12 SCC 527.

¶39

On the other hand, learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the transfer of the land in question is made in violation of Section 3(1)(e) read with Section 4 of the Act. He further submitted that the period of 11 years in initiating the action for resumption cannot be said to be such as to amount to delay and laches as would make the action void, considering that it is in respect of beneficial legislation for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribe community. In support of his submission, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyan -vs- Deputy Commissioner and Ors. reported in AIR 2019 SC 2797 .

¶40

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

¶41

¶42

Admittedly, in the instant case, the land in

¶43

question, which was conveyed to the appellant by a registered sale deed dated 23.03.1994 in the name of the appellant was mutated in the revenue records as owner vide MR No.42/95-96. The third respondent after a period of 11 years initiated suo moto proceedings. The Supreme Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) while dealing with provisions of the Act has held that Section 5 of the Act neither provides for any period within which an application under the Act has to be made nor prescribes the time within which suo motu action may be initiated. It has been held that the provisions of the statute even in the absence of any period of limitation must be invoked within reasonable time and the period of delay of 25 years in initiation of proceedings has been held to be unreasonable. In the instant case, the proceeding has been initiated after a lapse of 11 years after the Act came into force. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.83/2020 (Muniga @ Muniyappa -vs- Sri.Balakrishna and others) , where the proceeding was initiated

¶44

¶45

after a period of 29 years from the date of enactment of the Act has held that the proceeding was not initiated within a reasonable time. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has neither been appreciated by the Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner nor by learned Single Judge. The proceeding initiated after a lapse of 11 years after the execution of the sale deed cannot be said to be initiated within a reasonable time especially in the absence of any explanation in this regard.

¶46

In the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision relied

¶47

upon by the fourth respondent in the case of Satyan (supra), it was held that the delay of eight years itself does not come in the way of the competent Authority taking the action, as limitation principles would not apply as observed in the case of Amrendra Pratap Singh -vs- Tej Bahadur Prajapati and others reported in (2004) 10 SCC 81 para 25 . However, the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) and Cheddi Lal Yadav (supra) has held that where the period of limitation is not prescribed,

¶48

¶49

an application for restoration is to be filed within a reasonable period. In the instant case, proceeding was initiated after an inordinate delay of 11 years. Hence, the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Satyan (sura) will be of no avail. Thus, it is held that the proceedings for restoration of the land in question have not been initiated within a reasonable time. The impugned order dated 19.08.2013 passed by the third respondent - Assistant Commissioner and the impugned order dated 1.9.2014 passed by the second respondent - Deputy Commissioner and the order dated 10.10.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.45329/2014 are hereby quashed.

¶50

In the result, the appeal is allowed.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

bkm

Sri. Gangadharappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Gangadharappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harish M S Vs Balaji B

C Hanumanthappa Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Philips India Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Venkataramanappa Vs Sri Gopalaswamy Seva Trust

Smt Shakuntala Vs C Nagesh