Dismissed

Sri.Manjunath v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2023WA/1111/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an intra-court writ appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition seeking resumption of land. The court held that a filing delay of 35 years rendered the application barred by laches and unreasonable, affirming the lower authority's reversal of the Assistant Commissioner's order.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed, and the order of the Deputy Commissioner affirming the Assistant Commissioner's decision was upheld.

Sri.Manjunath Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:19731-DB WA No.1111 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1111 OF 2021 (SC/ST)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by RUPA V

¶12

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI. MANJUNATH S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS BALASANDRA VILLAGE DUGGASANDRA HOBLI MULBAGAL TQ KOLAR DIST 563132.

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

(BY SRI. C. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.,)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DIST KOLAR 563132.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB DIVISION KOLAR 563132.

¶19

MR. M. CHANGALARAYAPPA MAJOR S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA.

¶20

MS. MANJULAMMA MAJOR W/O VENAKTARAMANAPPA.

¶21

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:19731-DB WA No.1111 of 2021

¶22

MR. SHANKARAPPA MAJOR S/O DEVAPPA.

¶23

MR. RAMACHANDRAPPA MAJOR S/O MUNIYAPPA.

¶24

SRI. KRISHNAPPA MAJOR S/O RAMANNA.

¶25

MR. CHOWDAPPA MAJOR S/O RAMANNA.

¶26

MR. NARAYANAPPA MAJOR S/O RAMANNA.

¶27

MR. T.M. SOMANNA MAJOR S/O T K MADHAVAN.

¶28

ALL ARE R/AT BALASANDRA VILLGE DUGGASANDRA HOBLI MULBAGAL TQ, KOLAR DIST.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G. AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI. P. NARAYANAPPA, ADV., FOR C/R3-R9)

¶31

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 IN WP No.27795/2019 (SC/ST) ALLOW THE WP AS PRAYED FOR IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶32

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:19731-DB WA No.1111 of 2021

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

This intra Court appeal takes an exception to an order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.

¶37

Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that 4 acres of land in Sy.No.62 situated at Balasandra Village, Duggasandra Hobli, Mulabagal Taluk, Kolar District was granted to the grand father of the appellant in the year 1956. The grand father of the appellant, by a sale deed dated 21.05.1962, sold the aforesaid land. The appellant who is the grandson of the original grantee, filed an application on or about 24.03.2016 before the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The Assistant Commissioner, by an order dated

¶38

- 4 - NC: 2023:KHC:19731-DB WA No.1111 of 2021

¶39

05.07.2018, allowed the application and directed resumption of land in favour of the appellant. The aforesaid order was reversed by the Deputy Commissioner in an appeal by an order dated 25.07.2019.

¶40

The appellant assailed the validity of the aforesaid order in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 19.03.2021, by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

¶41

NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF

¶42

KARNATAKA AND OTHERS¹ , inter alia , held that the application seeking resumption of land was filed after an inordinate delay of 35 years and therefore, the land could not be granted to be resumed in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner

¶43

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶44

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:19731-DB WA No.1111 of 2021

¶45

dated 25.07.2019 was affirmed. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

¶46

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

¶47

that the State Government has issued a Circular dated 25.02.2022 wherein the authorities under the Act, have been directed to decide the question with regard to delay, in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further submitted that Section 11 of the Act has a overriding effect of the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 and do not apply to the petition seeking resumption of land. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SATYAN

¶48

Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ORS.² .

¶49

On the other hand, learned Additional

¶50

Government Advocate has submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is just and proper 2 2019 SCC Online SC 742

¶51

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:19731-DB WA No.1111 of 2021

¶52

and is consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that the application seeking resumption of land was filed by the appellant after an inordinate delay of 35 years and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

¶53

We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. The Supreme Court in NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI, supra has held that Section 5 of the Act enables any interested person to make an application for having the transfer annulled as void under Section 4 of the Act. The aforesaid Section does not prescribe for any period of limitation. However, it has been held that any action whether on an application of the parties or suo motu , must be taken within a reasonable period of time. The Supreme Court, in the aforesaid decision, held that the application seeking resumption of the land filed after a period of 24

¶54

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:19731-DB WA No.1111 of 2021

¶55

years, suffered from inordinate delay and was therefore, liable to be dismissed on that ground. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in VIVEK M.HINDUJA & ANR. Vs. M.ASHWATHA³ and it was held that whenever limitation is not prescribed, the party ought to approach the competent Court or Authority within a reasonable time beyond which no relief can be granted. In the aforesaid case, delay of 20 years in filing the application for resumption was held to be unreasonable.

¶56

In the backdrop of aforesaid legal well settled principles, we may advert to the case in hand. In the instant case, the proceeding for resumption of land was initiated after a period of 35 years. Thus, the proceeding initiated for resumption of land suffers from delay and laches, for which no explanation has been offered. The Assistant Commissioner, however, in ignorance of the aforesaid fact, allowed the application

¶57

3 (2020) 14 SCC 228

¶58

¶59

NC: 2023:KHC:19731-DB WA No.1111 of 2021

¶60

and directed resumption of land. The aforesaid order passed by the Assistant Commissioner has been rightly reversed by the Deputy Commissioner.

¶61

Asfar as reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the Circular dated 15.02.2022 is concerned, by the aforesaid Circular, it has merely been clarified that the authorities under the Act should deal with the application for resumption adverting to the facts and circumstance of each case. The aforesaid circular, in any case which is clarificatory in nature, is of no assistance to the appellant in the facts of the case.

¶62

It is pertinent to note that in SATYAN's case, supra , the delay was only of 8 years whereas in the instant case, delay is 35 years. Therefore, the aforesaid decision is of no assistance to the appellant.

¶63

Even assuming that no limitation has been prescribed for filing an application seeking resumption

¶64

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:19731-DB WA No.1111 of 2021

¶65

under the Act, yet a party ought to approach the competent authority within a reasonable time beyond which no relief can be granted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, delay of 35 years in filing an application for resumption is unreasonable and therefore, the appellant has rightly held not entitled to the relief of resumption by the Deputy Commissioner.

¶66

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶67

Consequently, pending interlocutory application, if any, is also dismissed.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

Sri.Manjunath v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Manjunath v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

M/S Savoury International Hotel Vs Mrs. Kaneezfathima

Sree Gajanana Motor Transport Co. Ltd., Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Vs M Ponnurangam

S K John Vs M/S Mysore Tools Limited

M/S Sea Bird Tourist Center Vs Smas Auto Leasing India Pvt. Ltd.

Yashpal Infrastructures Enterprises Vs Hdb Financial Services Ltd.