Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 270 (KAR)

C. K. Kanumaiah v. Dasaiah

2023-02-15

ALOK ARADHE, VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER ALOK ARADHE,J. - This intra Court appeal has been filed against an order dtd. 4/7/2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19482/2012 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellants has been dismissed. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the land measuring 5 acres in Sy.No.275, New No.648 situated at Challakere Village, Chitradurga District, was granted to one Dasaiah. A saguvali chit was issued in his favour on 9/5/1940. The aforesaid land was alienated by registered sale deed which was executed on 12/9/1963. After about a period of 25 years from the date of coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), an application was filed by the legal representatives of deceased grantee seeking resumption of the land. The aforesaid application was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner by an order dtd. 5/11/2003. The appellants who are the legal representatives of deceased purchaser, filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner by an order dtd. 24/10/2007. The appellants thereupon challenged the aforesaid order in a writ petition which was filed on 19/6/2012. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by an order dtd. 4/7/2012 on the ground of delay and laches. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 4. No limitation has been prescribed for filing the writ petition. However, a litigant should approach the Court within reasonable time. What would be reasonable time depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, the appellants had filed a writ petition nearly after a period of 5 years from the date of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The appellants had explained the aforesaid delay by stating that the appellants are old and infirm persons and are widows as well as illiterates. It was pleaded that the delay was caused on account of their poverty and illiteracy in approaching the counsel at Bangalore. The aforesaid explanation, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was a sufficient explanation. In our considered opinion, the delay was non-fatal and was not such as to disentitle the appellants to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 5. The aforesaid explanation, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was a sufficient explanation. In our considered opinion, the delay was non-fatal and was not such as to disentitle the appellants to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 5. The Supreme Court in NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS,(2020) 14 SCC 232. has held that Sec. 5 of the Act enables any interested person to make an application for having the transfer annulled as void under Sec. 4 of the Act. The aforesaid Sec. 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. 6. In the instant case, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the application seeking resumption of the land was filed after a period of 25 years from the commencement of the Act. Thus, there was an inordinate delay in filing the application seeking resumption and no explanation was offered for the aforesaid delay. 7. In view of the aforesaid well settled legal proposition laid down by the Supreme Court, the application filed by the legal representatives of the grantee ought not have been entertained. The orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law. For the aforementioned reasons, order dtd. 4/7/2012 passed by the learned Single Judge as well as orders dtd. 5/11/2003 and 24/10/2007 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, respectively are hereby quashed. In the result, the appeal is allowed.