This High Court Bench held that an application for land resumption filed after a 19-year lapse is not initiated within reasonable time and is not maintainable. The plea of delay is always maintainable despite lack of early objection. Writ petition dismissed.
Writ petition stands dismissed finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
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 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION No.17743 OF 2022 (SCST)
BETWEEN :
2
S/O LATE PALAIAH AGED 36 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KATAPPANAHATTY, CHALLAKERE TOWN - 577 522. CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B.M. SIDDAPPA, ADV.)
AND :
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITHA, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 IN CASE NO.SCPTL(A)-4/2019 DTD 27.01.2022 VIDE ANNX-E.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioner claiming to be the legal representative of the deceased grantee who filed an application under Section 5 of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act') for restoration and resumption of the subject land bearing No.59/6 measuring 4 acres situated at Challakere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Challakere Taluk on the ground that the sale deed executed in favour of third respondent was in contravention to Section 4(2) of the Act.
4
5
6
in 1993. The proceeding initiated after a lapse of 19 years from the date of sale cannot be said to be initiated within the reasonable time especially in the absence of any explanation in this regard. Thus, it is held that the proceeding for restoration of the land in question have not been initiated within a reasonable time.
v Deputy Commissioner and others reported in (2020) 14 SCC 236 has held that an application seeking for restoration and resumption filed after an inordinate delay is not maintainable and should have been done within a reasonable period of time and if such applications are filed after considerable delay, it should be rejected on the ground of delay alone.
7
v State of Karnataka and others (W.A.141/2020) wherein it is held that there can be no explanation for the delay and the question of limitation can be raised at any point of time provided there is a material available to deal with the question.
Sd/JUDGE
RKA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for restoration and resumption of land filed after an inordinate delay of 19 years is maintainable within a reasonable time.
Whether the doctrine of audit precludes the respondent from raising the plea of delay when it was not raised at the first opportunity.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi –vs- State of Karnataka and anotherRelied on¶35
_Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi –vs- State of Karnataka and another_
Chhedi Lal Yadav and others –vsHari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs and othersRelied on¶35
_Chhedi Lal Yadav and others –vsHari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs and others_
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra)Relied on¶39
_Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra)_
Ningappa v Deputy Commissioner and othersRelied on¶43
Ningappa v Deputy Commissioner and others reported in (2020) 14 SCC 236 · Who else cites this
Kaverappa v State of Karnataka and othersDistinguished¶45
_Kaverappa v State of Karnataka and others (W.A.141/2020)_
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SMT. BORAMMA W/O LATE DADAIAH
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
