Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.42 seconds)Section 5 in Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [Entire Act]
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978
The Limitation Act, 1963
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs State Of Karnataka on 26 October, 2017
motu proceedings have been initiated in the year 2006. The
initiation of proceedings is after a lapse of 27 years from the
date the Act came into force. The initiation of the proceedings
35
itself is after unreasonable delay. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI vs. STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2017 SCC Online SC
1862 has held as hereinbelow:
Amrendra Pratap Singh vs Tej Bahadur Prajapati & Ors on 21 November, 2003
Thus, the Apex Court has not disturbed the law laid
down in the earlier aforesaid decisions but
distinguished the case in hand only on the basis of
the fact that the delay was only of eight years. In the
present case, delay is about fifty five years. The
application for restoration of the land was not made
within a reasonable time. We, therefore, find no
error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge
as in view of such a long delay, it cannot be said that
proceedings were initiated within a reasonable time.
Hence, there is no merit in this appeal and it is
dismissed."
Section 5A in Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [Entire Act]
R. Rudrappa vs Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga ... on 4 November, 1998
Accordingly, the
judgments of the Karnataka High Court, namely, R.
Rudrappa vs. Deputy Commissioner, 2000 (1)
Karnataka Law Journal, 523, Maddurappa vs. State
of Karnataka, 2006 (4) Karnataka Law Journal, 303
and G. Maregouda vs. The Deputy Commissioner,
Chitradurga District, Chitradurga and Ors, 2000(2)
Kr. L.J.Sh. N.4B holding that there is no limitation
provided by Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, an
application can be made at any time, are overruled.
Order accordingly."
Manchegowda Etc vs State Of Karnataka Etc on 17 April, 1984
In fact, the Apex Court distinguished its
earlier decisions in the case of Manchegowda and
Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others as well as
in the case of Amrendra Pratap Singh Vs. Tej
Bahadur Prajapati & Ors., on the ground that in the
said cases, there was a huge gap of 20 to 22 years.