SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. ARAKKANETIL OMEN IYPE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These intra Court appeals have been filed against the order dtd. 20/2/2018 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1 in W.P.No.10137/2010 has been allowed. The appellant in W.A.No.1201/2018 is the legal representative of original grantee.

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that the land bearing Sy.No.177/P27 measuring 4 acres situated at Bagalur Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk (hereinafter referred to as 'schedule land', for short) was allotted in favour of one Venkataswamy who, during his life time, sold the schedule land by a registered sale deed dtd. 6/9/1962. Subsequently, the respondent No.1 purchased the schedule land by registered sale deed dtd. 18/8/1997. After a period of 27 years from the date when Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) came into force, an application was filed by the legal representatives of Venkataswamy seeking resumption of the land in question. The aforesaid application was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner by an order dtd. 4/1/2008 and the said order was upheld in an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner by an order dtd. 3/3/2010. The respondent No.1 challenged the aforesaid orders in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge, taking note of enormous delay in filing the application seeking resumption, has allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1 and has set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. In the aforesaid factual background, these appeals have been filed.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The Supreme Court in 'NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS' (2020) 14 SCC 432 has held that Sec. 5 of the 1978 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.