The main legal point established in the judgment is that applications for resumption of land under the Act must be filed within a reasonable time, and inordinate delay without a prima facie explanation can lead to the dismissal of the application.

JUDGMENT

Alok Aradhe, Actg, C.J. - This intra court appeal has been filed against an order dated 09.12.2021 passed by learned Single Judge, by which in a writ petition preferred by respondent Nos. 3 to 8, order dated 24.09.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the order dated 17.08.2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for short), have been quashed and the writ petition has been allowed.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal in nutshell are, that on 24.06.1954, land bearing Sy. No. 13 (new No. 84) measuring 3 acres 20 guntas situate at Mohiddinpura Village, Channagiri Taluk, was granted in favour of one Hanuma Naik who alienated the land in favour of one Siddappa on 10.01.1970. Thereafter, the aforesaid land was re-conveyed on 18.01.1982 and 16.04.1986. Sometime in the year 2018, after a period of 45 years, appellant filed an application for restoration of land under Section 5(1) of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner by an order dated 17.08.2020 allowed the application filed by appellant.

3. Being aggrieved, respondent Nos. 3 to 8 filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, who by an order dated 24.09.2021 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The aforesaid orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner was challenged in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 09.12.2021 quashed the aforesaid orders inter alia on the ground that there was an inordinate delay of more than 45 years in filing the application for resumption and allowed the writ petition. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an opportunity to explain the delay ought to have been given to the appellant and therefore, the matter be remitted. However, learned counsel did not indicate even a prima facie explanation for the inordinate delay of 45 years in filing the application for resumption. In support of the contention that the matter should be remitted, reference has been made to Division Bench decisions of this Court in Smt. P. Kamala v. State of Karnataka and Others, ILR 2019 KAR 3301 and Shivaraju & Others v. Deputy Comissioner & Others1.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents have supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the records. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and Others (2020) 14 SCC 232 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 Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble 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.

7. Admittedly, in the instant case, land was alienated on 10.01.1970. After a period of 45 years, an application seeking resumption was filed. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner on