Supreme Court - Daily Orders
A.Narasimhamurthy (Dead) vs State Of Karnataka on 12 September, 2018
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5031 OF 2009
A. NARASIMHAMURTHY (D) APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Application for substitution is allowed.
2. The respondent No. 4 was granted four acres of land in Survey No. 60 of Byradenhalli village, Kundana Hobil, Devenahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. He sold the said land to the appellant by a registered sale deed dated 28.09.1966.
3. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain lands ) Act, 1978 (For short,"the Karnataka Act") came into force on 01.01.1979. The respondent No. 4 filed an application Signature Not Verified before the Assistant Commissioner, Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR Date: 2018.09.14 17:06:01 IST Reason: Doddaballapura Sub-Division, at Bangalore for release of the land of 4 Acres under Section 5 2 of the Prohibition of Transfer of Certain lands under the aforementioned Act in the year 1994- 1995. The Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura, directed forfeiture of the land to the Government on the ground that the land was alienated by respondent No. 4 in favour of the appellant before the expiry of 15 years.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner,Doddaballapura,the appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, Rural District, Karnataka. As the land was not restored in favour of respondent No. 4, he also filed an appeal. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore on 18.04.2000. By the same order, the appeal filed by respondent No. 4 was allowed. The appellant filed writ petitions against the common order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore which were allowed by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court on 26.09.2000. The 3 learned Single Judge held that the alienation made by respondent No. 4 was only in respect of the land granted free of cost or at a price less than the full market value. There was no bar, according to the learned Single Judge, regarding alienation of the land in the instant case.
5. The Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka by judgment dated 11.08.2005 set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and restored the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore.
6. Shri S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant(s) referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Vivek M. Hinduja & Ors. vs. M. Ashwatha & Ors., C.A. No. 2166/2009 and Connected matters, dated 06.12.2017 wherein this Court held that though there is no prescribed period of limitation, the application for resumption of land should be made within a reasonable time. The application 4 filed in the said case under the Karnataka Act for resumption of land was 20 years from the date of coming into force of the Karnataka Act. In the present case, the application filed by respondent No. 4 was after 15 years from the date of the coming into force of the Karnataka Act.
7. Without going into other points involved in the case, we are of the considered opinion that this case is fully covered by the order of this Court in C.A. No. 2166 of 2009 and connected matters decided on 06.12.2017. Hence, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.
8. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
....................J. [ L. NAGESWARA RAO ] ..........................J. [ MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR] NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 12,2018.
5
ITEM NO.101 In COURT NO.6 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 5031/2009
A.NARASIMHAMURTHY (DEAD) Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(WITH APPLN(S). FOR SUBSTITUTION, CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUBSTITUTION, EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 12-09-2018 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR For Appellant(s) Mr. S.N. Bhat, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Md. Apzal Ansari, Adv.
Ms. Awantika Manohar, Adv. Mr. Joseph Pookkatt, Adv. Mr. Dhawesh Pahuyja, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.
for M/S. AP & J Chambers, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.
Application for substitution is allowed.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application stands disposed of.
[ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Indu Kumari Pokhriyal ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Asstt. Registrar [ Signed order is placed on the file ]