CHOWDAPPA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIMOGA DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Appeal was admitted on 29.10.2003. The Appellant died on 16.06.2006 at the age of 71 years. The application seeking impleadment of the legal representatives of the Appellant came to be filed on 04.08.2011. It is undisputed that on 20.07.2011, it was the Respondent, who had filed a memorandum bringing these facts to the notice of the Court. It is also beyond cavil that the Appeal was not listed before Court for almost five years until 09.09.2010. By means of this application, the Appellant seeks condonation of delay of 1630 days in taking steps from impleadment of the legal representatives of the deceased Appellant. The deceased Appellant has left behind his widow aged 71 years and two sons aged 48 years and 39 years respectively. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that in addition to these two sons, the deceased Appellant has also one daughter and two other sons.

(2.) ALTHOUGH ordinarily, we would not venture on to the merits of the dispute, until the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the legal representatives are impleaded, we propose to do so for the reason that there is a perceptible practice of delaying litigation in the Courts in cases covered by the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PTCL ' Act for the sake of brevity). Briefly stated, the land has been allotted to depressed sections of the society including Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on certain terms. In the present case, the grant was made in favour of the deceased Respondent No.3 on 27.09.1957 followed by the execution of a saguvali chit on 10.10.1957, containing a non-alienation clause for 15 years. The Grantee, Respondent No.3. made the first sale to one Srinivasa Rao on 17.04.1965: Srinivasa Rao sold in favour of Siddappa, by sale deed dated 21.01.1967 and eventually the Appellant purchased the land from Siddappa on 24.02.1971. These transactions are not only contrary to the terms of the saguvali chit itself, but also to the enactment, which came in subsequently, i.e., PTCL Act, Section 4 of which declares these transactions to be null and void. There is enormous litigation pending in Courts. Which are for several decades unended. It obviously serves the interest of the purchaser to even seek a remand, so that a litigation starts de novo. This is what has happened in the present case also, as is manifestly clear from a reading of the impugned order. The decision in Writ Petition No.4567/2000 eludes to the previous litigation in Writ Appeal No.115/1993 which ended, by the matter being remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner, Shimoga Sub-Division, restricted only to the question of whether the grantee belonged to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe on the date of the grant. The proceedings commenced in the year 1982-83 in terms of Case No.PTCL.CR.538/82-83.

(3.) OUR attention has been drawn to the observations made by their Lordship in State of Bihar Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, AIR 2000 SC 2306 which reads as follows: