SIDDAPPA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from an order dtd. 21/6/2021 passed by learned Single Judge by which writ petition preferred by the appellant had been dismissed.

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the land in bearing Sy.No.7 situated at Hosakerehalli Villge, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk was granted in favour of the father of the appellant on 30/10/1961. The respondent No.4 sold 1 acre and 15 guntas of the granted land to one Sri.Nagendra Prasad vide sale deed dtd. 4/1/1999 and granted land to an extent of 1 acre 15 guntas was mutated in the name of respondent No.5. A confirmation deed was also executed on 15/6/2008. Thereafter, the said Sri.Nagendra Prasad on 9/6/2003 sold the land in favour of respondent No.5. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under Sec. 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. The said application was allowed on 30/1/2012. The Deputy Commissioner by an order dtd. 6/8/2012 set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge.

(3.) We have considered the submissions 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 232 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.