Karnataka High Court
Smt. Devadasi Honnuramma D/O Begara ... vs The Deputy Commissioner on 29 May, 2023
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
WP No. 104489 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 104489 OF 2022 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
SMT. DEVADASI HONNURAMMA D/O BEGARA
DODDABASAPPA, AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DAROJI VILLAGE,
TQ: SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI-583104.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BALLARI-583101.
2. THE ASSISANT COMMISSIONER,
BALLARI-583101.
RAKESH S
HARIHAR 3. N. VIRUPAKSHAPPA S/O N. DODDAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed by RAKESH R/O. TORANAGALLU VILLAGE,
S HARIHAR
Location: High Court of TQ: SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI-583101.
Karnataka, Dharwad
Date: 2023.06.01 11:26:53 ... RESPONDENTS
+0530 (BY SRI. VINAYAK S KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITIUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING IMPUGNED
ORDER IN NO. SAN:REVENUE .PTCL.NO. 18/2010-11 DATED
23/12/2021 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 VIDE
ANNEXURE-E AND QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 DATED 30/03/2022 IN
-2-
WP No. 104489 of 2022
APPEAL BEARING NO. REV/APL/01/2021-22 VIDE ANNEXURE-F
CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO RESTORE
THE LAND IN QUESTION TO THE PETITIONER FREE FROM ALL
ENCUMBRANCES.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The legal representative of original grantee has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-E and the order dated 30.03.2022 vide Annexure-F passed by respondent No.1.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. Facts leading to filing of this writ petition narrated briefly are; the land bearing Sy.No.1087/B measuring 2.62 acres situated at Daroji village of Sandur taluk, Ballari district was granted in favour of the father of the petitioner namely Begara Doddabasappa under a grant order dated 08.07.1963. During the lifetime of the original -3- WP No. 104489 of 2022 grantee, he had sold the land in question in favour of the 3rd respondent herein under a registered sale deed dated 08.04.1992. The original grantee is said to have died on 08.08.2000. After his death on 03.12.2010, the petitioner had filed an application under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short "the Act") to the 2nd respondent with a prayer to resume the land in question in her favour on the ground that the sale made by her father in favour of the 3rd respondent was hit by the provisions of the Act.
4. The said application was dismissed by the 2nd respondent by order dated 23.12.2021 and the appeal filed by the petitioner as against the said order before the 2nd respondent was also dismissed on 30.03.2022. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the original grantee belongs to scheduled caste and -4- WP No. 104489 of 2022 therefore the sale of the land in question was hit by the provisions of the Act. He further submits that, after the Act came into force, without permission of the competent authority, the 3rd respondent could not have purchased the land in question from the original grantee.
6. Learned AGA has argued in support of the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and submits that, the application was filed by the petitioner after a delay of 18 years and having regard to the settled position of law, application which is filed seeking resumption of land beyond a reasonable period, cannot be entertained. Accordingly he prays to dismiss the petition.
7. The undisputed facts of the case are, the land in question was granted to the father of the petitioner under a grant order dated 08.07.1963 and during his life time, he had executed a sale deed in respect of the granted land in favour of the 3rd respondent. The said sale deed was registered on 08.04.1992. During the life time of the grantee he had not choosen to file any application -5- WP No. 104489 of 2022 seeking resumption of the land. The original grantee had died on 08.08.2000. After his death, the application seeking resumption has been filed under Section 5 of the Act by the petitioner on 03.12.2012. That is after a delay of 18 years from the date of execution of the sale deed by her father. The authorities concerned, considering the same have rightly dismissed the application on the ground of delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Ramalakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 and also in the case of Vivek M. Hinduja and others vs. M.Ashwath and others (Civil Appeal No.2166/2009), has observed that the applications under the Act which are not filed within a reasonable period cannot be entertained.
8. In the case on hand, admittedly the application seeking resumption under Section 5 of the Act has been filed after a delay of 18 years and the same cannot be considered as a reasonable period. Therefore, I am of the view that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are fully justified in -6- WP No. 104489 of 2022 dismissing the application on the ground of delay and latches.
There is no good reason to interfere with the same. I find no merit in this petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kgk,Rsh/Ct:Bck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30