This appeal challenges the dismissal of a writ petition which quash orders restoring disputed land. The court found the appeal dismissed due to unreasonable delay of 45 years in filing the application and procedural failures of respondent parties.
The writ appeal is dismissed as the proceedings were not initiated within a reasonable time.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.4683 OF 2015 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
SHRI T THIPPESWAMY, S/O CHIMMANNA, AGE MAJOR, R/AT.GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 572 143. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PAVAN KUMAR N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI L SRINIVAS BABU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-572 143. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVA PRABHU S HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2-R4, V/O/DTD 22.04.2019 APPEAL AGAINST R1, R5-R7 STANDS DISMISSED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.6374/2012 DATED 28/01/2014.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
This intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is filed against the order dated 28.1.2014 passed by the learned single Judge in WP No.6374/2012.
T Gollahalli village in Hiriyur Taluk was granted in favour of one Maramma on 7.6.1929 with a condition that the said land shall not be alienated for a period of 20 years without the prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner. The original grantee sold the land in favour of the 5th respondent on 25.7.1952 and in turn, he sold the said land in 1953 in favour of the 6th respondent who in turn sold the same in favour of the 7th respondent on 30.11.1960. Thereafter, the 7th respondent sold the land in favour of the respondent No.1.
4
Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands), Act, 1978 (for short `the Act’) seeking resumption and restoration of the land alleging that the land was sold in violation of the conditions of the grant prohibiting alienation. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the application by declaring that the sale deed as void and ordered for resumption and restoration of land in favour of the original grantee. Being aggrieved, the 1st respondent filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 8.2.2012 dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner restoring the land in question in favour of the original grantee. Taking exception to the same, the 1st respondent preferred writ petition before this Court.
5
appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge and sought for dismissal of the writ appeal.
learned counsel for the parties and perused the appeal papers.
on 7.6.1929 and the first transfer was effected by the
6
original grantee in favour of the 5th respondent on 25.7.1952. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Mariyappa -vs- Dr.N Thimarayappa and others reported in (2004) 3 KCCR 1471 after considering the effect of Section 36 of the Mysore Land Revenue Code has held in para-11 as follows:
"From a reading of Section 36, it is clear that the grant of Government land was required to be regulated by the rules that might have been framed by the Government under Section 233 of the Code. Admittedly, there was no such rule as on the date of grant regulating the grant of the Government land. When the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done only in that manner. As stated earlier, the disposal of the Government land under Section 36 of the Code is by the Deputy Commissioner subject to the orders of the Revenue Commissioner as authorized by the rules. If that is so, in the absence of any such rule framed by the State Government regulating the grant of land, no condition could be imposed restraining alienation of land by an order issued in exercise of the executive power.”
of the Division Bench in the case of Mariyappa (supra) has held that the sale of land in question after lapse of 20
7
years which was the condition imposed in the Government Order cannot be said to be in violation of the condition of grant and accordingly, set aside the orders passed by the 3rd and 4th respondents restoring the land in question in favour of the original grantee. In view of the decision in the case of Mariyappa, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with.
8
time and the period of delay of 25 years in initiation of proceeding has been held to be unreasonable.
alienated in 1952. However, the appellant filed an application under Section 5 of the Act in the year 1999 after expiry of more than 45 years from the date of alienation and after 21 years from the date of commencement of the Act and there is no valid explanation offered by the appellant in filing the application after the lapse of 21 years from the date of commencement of the Act. Thus it is held that the proceedings for restoration of the land in question has not been initiated within a reasonable time.
9
passed by the learned Single Judge is perfectly legal and does not warrant any interference.
Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
bkm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the restoration of land proceeds when the application is filed 45 years after the alleged transfer of land.
Whether the delay of 45 years in initiating proceedings under Section 5 of the Act renders the action unreasonable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mariyappa -vs- Dr.N Thimarayappa and othersFollowed¶45
(2004) 3 KCCR 1471
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi -vs- State of Karnataka and anotherReferred¶51
ILR 2018 Kar. 1352 · Who else cites this
Cheddi Lal Yadav and others -vs- Harikishore Yadav (d) othr. Lrs. and othersReferred¶51
(2018) 12 SCC 527 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri T Thippeswamy
Shri Jayaramappa
Hemant Chandangoudar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
