Karnataka High Court
Sri Muniyappa vs The Special Deputy Commissioner on 22 August, 2022
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. NO.152 OF 2022 (SC-ST)
IN
W.P. NO.44506 OF 2013 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MUNIYAPPA
W/O LATE MUNIMARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
2. SMT. GANGAMMA
W/O LATE THIPPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
3. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE RAJANNA
AGED MAJOR.
4. SHRI. MUNIKRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKADASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT SURADENAPURA VILLAGE
HESSARAGATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
BANGALORE
REP. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
2
SRI. B. BETTAIAH
S/O LATE BETTE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT NOS.29 AND 30
7TH "A" CROSS, 23RD MAIN ROAD
J.P. NAGAR, II PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 078.
... APPELLANTS
[BY MR. B. RAVINDRANATH, ADV., (ABSENT)]
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
BANGALORE - 560 009.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION
BANGALORE - 560 002.
3. SHRI. RAMESH MANI IYER
S/O. SRI. S.S. MANI
AGED MAJOR,
4. SMT. BHAVANI RAMESH IYER
W/O. ULLAL SADASHIVA NAYAK
AGED MAJOR.
R3 AND R4 ARE R/AT NO.221, B3
GHATAPRABHA
NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE - 560 034
BOTH ARE REP. BY GPA HOLDER
SRI. GIRIDHAR KINI
FLAT NO.A/3, GAURAV ENCLAVE
331/1, KHB ROAD, SULTANPALYA
R.T. NAGAR POST, 4, 1ST CROSS
BANGALORE - 560 032.
3
5. SRI. M. KADRIYAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT SURADENAPURA VILLAGE
HESARAGATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 061.
6. SRI. HANUMAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT SURADENAPURA VILLAGE
HESARAGATTA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 061.
7. SHRI. T.S. BYLAPPA
S/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAH
AGE: MAJOR
R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 073.
8. SHRI. C.K. KARIYAPPA
S/O. KUSHALAPPA
AGE: MAJOR
R/AT GONIKOPPA, DAKSHINA KODAGU
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236.
9. SHRI. K. SITHARAM
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN
AGE:MAJOR, NO.47/1
5TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET
BANGALORE - 560 018.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA., FOR R1 &R2)
---
4
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
WRIT APPEAL. SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 31.01.2020 IN WRIT
PETITION NO.44506/2013 (SC-ST) PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT. ISSUE ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION,
WRIT DEEMED PROPER.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal arises from an order 31.01.2020 passed by learned Single Judge, by which writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that land bearing Sy.No.31/18 New Survey No.70 measuring 2 acres situate at Sriramanahalli Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore North (Addl.) Taluk was granted in favour of one late Chikkathippa on 10.09.1949. The aforesaid land was alienated under a registered sale deed dated 5 06.07.1967 and thereafter was re-conveyed on 31.06.1980, 22.05.1990 and 05.01.1994.
3. An application was filed after a delay of 26 years in the year 2006 before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 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 13.02.2008 allowed the application. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred by the Deputy Commissioner, who allowed the same by an order dated 02.07.2010. The aforesaid order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was challenged in a writ petition before the learned Single Judge, which has been dismissed by impugned order 31.01.2020. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 6
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record. The Supreme Court in 'NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS' 2017 SCC Online SC 1862 has held that even though no time limit is prescribed for initiation of action under the Act, yet the same has to be initiated within reasonable time.
5. In the instant case, the land in question was granted on 10.09.1949. The same was alienated on 05.07.1969, 31.06.1980, 22.05.1990 and 05.01.1994. The legal representatives of the grantee filed an application for resumption of the same after a period of 26 years from the date when the Act came into force i.e. 01.01.1979. No explanation has been offered for making such an application after an inordinate delay of 26 years. The Deputy Commissioner, therefore, has rightly held that the legal representatives of the grantee are not entitled to 7 resumption of the land and the said order has been upheld.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE SS