Court quashed an order resuming land granted under 1955 Act, holding that Section 5 application filed 34 years post-sale and 30+ years post-Act exceeds reasonable time limits cited in precedents.
Impugned order dated 29.03.2016 quashed; order of Assistant Commissioner restored; Section 5 application dismissed.
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 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO.45965 OF 2016 (SCST)
BETWEEN :
PETITIONERS ARE RESIDENTS OF DODDAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN:562 110.
PETITIONERS 3 AND 4 REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER R MANJUNATH, THE FIRST PETITIONER HEREIN DODDAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PIN:562 110. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHARATH S GOWDA, ADV.)
2
AND:
(BY SMT.N ANITHA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3, SRI K.V.YASHWANTH, ADV. FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ENDING WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.29.3.2016 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEX-G AND ETC.,
3
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
New Survey No.57 measuring 8 acres situated at
Doddappanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk was granted to Munivenkatappa on 27.12.1955 and he inturn sold 6 acres 20 guntas of subject land in favour of the father of the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 23.11.1962. Respondent No.4 claiming to be the legal representative of the deceased grantee filed an application under Section 5 of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1978' for short) for resumption and restoration of the said land alleging that the sale deed executed in favour of the father of the petitioner was in contravention of Section 4(1) of the Act, 1978. The said application was filed in the year 2011.
4
2. The Assistant Commissioner concerned
rejected the application stating that the subject land is not a granted land as defined under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, 1978, since the subject land was purchased at an upset price in an auction against which the 4th respondent filed an appeal. The Deputy Commissioner concerned allowed the appeal by setting-aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner concerned by resumption and restoration of the subject land in favour of the 4th respondent against which the present petition is filed.
3. I have considered the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the parties.
out of 8 acres, an extent of 6 acres 22 guntas was conveyed to the father of the petitioner through a registered sale deed dated 23.11.1962. Respondent No.4 claiming to be the legal representative of the
5
deceased original grantee filed an application under Section 5 of the Act, 1978 in 2011 after an inordinate delay of more than 32 years from the date of commencement of the Act, 1978. The Supreme Court in NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI vs STATE OF KARNATATA AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2018 Kar. 1352 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 proceeding has been held to be unreasonable. In the instant case, the proceeding has been initiated after a lapse of 34 years after the Act came into force. A division bench of this court in W.A.No.83/2020 (MUNIGA @ MUNIYAPPA VS.
6
SRI.BALAKRISHNA AND OTHERS), in case, where the proceeding is imitated 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 50 years after the Act came into force and after a period of 34 years after the execution of the sale deed 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 .
ORDER
Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 29.03.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent -
7
Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru at Annexure - G is hereby quashed. The order passed by the 3rd respondent - Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District stands restored and consequently, the application filed by the 4th respondent - Sri Manjunath under Section 5 of the Act, 1978 stands dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
brn
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for resumption of land under the Act, 1978 filed after a delay of more than 30 years is barred for want of legitimate expectation of repose?
Whether the current proceedings in this case were initiated within a reasonable time given the 3-year gap between the delays discussed in cited precedents?
Whether the impugned order resuming land in contravention of the principle of reasonable time warrants quashing?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs State of Karnatata and AnotherReferred¶35
NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI vs STATE OF KARNATATA AND ANOTHER, ILR 2018 Kar. 1352 · Who else cites this
Muniga @ Muniyappa vs Sri.Balakrishna and OthersReferred¶36
W.A.No.83/2020 (MUNIGA @ MUNIYAPPA VS. SRI.BALAKRISHNA AND OTHERS)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
R MANJUNATH and ORS.
STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE and ORS.
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
