Back
ALOK ARADHE, S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
Kadriyappa – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner, – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the appellants has been dismissed. In order to appreciate the appellants' grievance, few facts need mention which are stated infra.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the land bearing old Sy.No.31/17 and new Sy.No.58 measuring 2 acres situated at Srimanahalli Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore North (Addl.) Taluk was granted in favour of Munidasa @ Munidasappa on 10.09.1949. The aforesaid land was alienated under a registered sale deed dated 06.07.1967 and thereafter was re- conveyed on 31.06.1980, 31.12.1992 and 30.11.1993. Some time in the year 2006, after a period of 26 years, the legal representatives of the original grantee filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1978 Act' for short). The aforesaid application was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner by an order dated 01.04.2008. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 preferred an appeal which was allowed
Inordinate delay in initiating proceedings under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 renders the application liable to be dismisse....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay in initiating proceedings under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978....
Unreasonable delay in filing the application for resumption of land under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, does not entitle th....
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 explanati....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that any action, including filing an application seeking resumption of land, must be taken within a reasonable period of time, and inordinate delay....
Delay in seeking annulment under statutory provisions must be reasonable; innocent purchasers should not suffer due to delay and laches by others.
A bonafide auction sale cannot be annulled on the ground of violation of unproven breach of law.
The court established that amendments to the 1978 Act did not alter the principle that unreasonable delay in filing resumption applications could lead to dismissal, emphasizing the distinction betwee....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
