Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 818 (KAR)

N. Muniraju v. Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore

2022-07-01

ALOK ARADHE, J.M.KHAZI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. 1. This intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.11.2018 passed in W.P. No. 10004/2007 by which the writ petition preferred by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has been allowed and order dated 04.04.2007 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been quashed. 2. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the land in question was granted in favour of the father of the appellant on 13.02.1940. The land in question was alienated in the year 1948. After a period of 56 years, proceedings for resumption of the land under the provisions of the Act were initiated on 07.05.2005. The Assistant Commissioner by an order dated 15.07.2006 rejected the application filed for resumption of the land under Section 4 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, who by an order dated 04.04.2007 remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for inquiry. 3. The aforesaid order of remand passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 04.04.2007 was challenged by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in a writ petition, namely, W.P. No. 10004/2007. Learned Single Judge by a common order dated 20.11.2018 passed in the said writ petition as well as in W.P. No. 10003/2007 has allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the Act. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the order under challenge before him was merely an order of remand and therefore no interference was called for. It was further submitted that learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that no finding was recorded on the merits of the matter. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submitted that the proceedings for resumption of the land under Section 4 of the Act was initiated after an inordinate delay of 56 years and therefore, learned Single Judge rightly quashed the order dated 04.04.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submitted that the proceedings for resumption of the land under Section 4 of the Act was initiated after an inordinate delay of 56 years and therefore, learned Single Judge rightly quashed the order dated 04.04.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. It is also pointed out that an intra court appeal-W.A. No. 383/2019 was filed against the order passed in W.P. No. 10003/2007 and the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 03.06.2018 had upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. We have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant 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 and Another 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 land in question was allotted in the year 1940 and was alienated in the year 1948. The application for resumption was filed after an inordinate delay of 56 years for which no explanation has been offered. Therefore, no useful purpose would have been served by remitting the matter to the Assistant Commissioner. The learned Single Judge has therefore rightly quashed the order dated 04.04.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 8. The application for resumption was filed after an inordinate delay of 56 years for which no explanation has been offered. Therefore, no useful purpose would have been served by remitting the matter to the Assistant Commissioner. The learned Single Judge has therefore rightly quashed the order dated 04.04.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 8. It is pertinent to note that by a common order dated 20.11.2018, two writ petitions, namely, W.P. No. 10003/2007 and W.P. No. 10004/2007 were decided. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 10003/2007 has already been upheld by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 03.06.2019 passed in W.P. No. 383/2019. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.