Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1048 (KAR)

G. Vijayalakshmi v. R. Ramachandra Rao

2022-08-10

ALOK ARADHE, S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

body2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. These intra Court appeals have been filed against a common order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge by which orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have been set aside and the matter has been remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh consideration. Since all the appeals arise from a common order, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. For the facility of reference, facts of W.A.No.4059/2019 are being referred to. Land bearing Sy.No.106/P-110 measuring 4 acres situated at Teru-bedi Village, Maravalli Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk (hereinafter referred to as the 'schedule land', for short) was allotted to the father of the respondent No.5 on 16.05.1942. However, the schedule land was alienated on 07.12.1997. After a period of 10 years, an application seeking resumption of the land was filed 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) on the ground that the respondent No.5 belongs to 'beda' community which is a notified Scheduled Tribe. The Assistant Commissioner, by an order dated 16.06.2009, allowed the application preferred by the respondent No.5. The aforesaid order was affirmed in an appeal by the Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 01.12.2010. 3. The appellant, who had purchased the schedule land by a registered sale deed dated 17.09.2005, assailed the validity of the aforesaid orders in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge, by an interim order, referred the matter to the Caste Verification Committee who opined that the petitioner belongs to 'beda' community which is a notified Scheduled Tribe. The learned Single Judge, however by an order dated 18.10.2019, set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner and remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for adjudication afresh. In the aforesaid factual background, these appeals have been filed. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that there was inordinate delay in filing the application seeking resumption of the land under Section 5 of the Act. It is further submitted that on this ground alone, the writ petition ought to have been allowed. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that there was inordinate delay in filing the application seeking resumption of the land under Section 5 of the Act. It is further submitted that on this ground alone, the writ petition ought to have been allowed. It is also submitted that by an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, the social status of the respondent No.5 could not have been ascertained. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has submitted that the Caste Verification Committee was constituted in accordance with the Rules and with the consent of the appellant. It is further submitted that the respondent No.5 belongs to 'beda' community which is a notified Scheduled Tribe. It is alternatively urged that all contentions are being kept open to be adjudicated in the proceeding before the Assistant Commissioner and therefore, no case for interference is made out in this intra Court appeal. 6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. The Supreme Court in 'Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State Of Karnataka And Others' (2020) 14 SCC 432 has held that Section 5 of the 1978 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 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.ashwatha' (2020) 14 SCC 228 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. 7. In the instant case, the grant was made in favour of the father of respondent No.5 on 16.05.1942. In the aforesaid case, delay of 20 years in filing the application for resumption was held to be unreasonable. 7. In the instant case, the grant was made in favour of the father of respondent No.5 on 16.05.1942. The schedule land was alienated on 07.12.1997 for the first time. Thereafter, it was sold to appellant on 17.09.2005. After the second sale, an application on 16.06.2007 was filed under Section 5 of the Act seeking resumption. Thus, there was a delay of 10 years in filing the application seeking resumption. The Supreme Court in 'Ningappa Vs. Dy. Commissioner & Ors.' IN Civil Appeal No.3131/2007 DECIDED ON 14.07.2011, in case of delay of 9 years in filing the application seeking resumption, has held that there was a considerable delay in filing the application for resumption and the application seeking resumption should have been dismissed on the ground of delay alone. In the instant case, there is unexplained delay of 10 years in filing the application for resumption. 8. It is also pertinent to mention that in the original order of grant dated 16.05.1942, the caste of the father of respondent No.5 has been described as 'bedaru' which is not a caste of Scheduled Tribe. Similarly, the first sale deed dated 07.12.1997 also contained a recital that the schedule land does not belong either to a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, it is not permissible for the respondent No.5 to turn around and to contend that they belong to 'beda' community which is a notified Scheduled Tribe. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge. The order of remand will give rise to further litigation and is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Therefore, the impugned order dated 18.10.2019 is hereby set aside. In the result the appeals are disposed of.