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 by the Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 27.09.2012. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was assailed by the appellants in a writ petition. The writ petition preferred by the appellants has been dismissed by the impugned order and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 27.09.2012 was affirmed inter alia holding that the application for resumption of land in question was made after a delay of 26 years. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that within the period of non-alienation, the land in question was sold on account of illiteracy of the original grantee. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that against the order dated 01.04.2008 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal in another proceeding with regard to the very same land was preferred before the Special Deputy Commissioner which was dismissed on 28.07.2010. However, in the case of the appellants, a contrary view has been taken by the Deputy Commissioner. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in 'P. Kamala Vs. State of Karnataka' ILR 2019 KAR 3301 and 'SHIVARAJU & Ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner' in Review Petition No. 393/2012 Decided ON 28.06.2022.

4. We have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record. The Supreme Court in 'Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State Of Karnataka And Others' (2020) 14 SCC 432 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 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.

5. In the instant case, the proceeding under the Act has been initiated after a delay of 26 years. Thus, the proceeding initiated under the Act suffers from delay and laches for which no explanation has been offered. The learned Single Judge has therefore, right