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 the party to seek relief.

JUDGMENT

1. This intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dtd. 27/11/2018 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent Nos.1 to 6 has been allowed.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the father-in-law of the appellant was granted land measuring 4 acres of Sy.No.81, Block-A, New No.137 of Ragimuddanahalli Village, Kothathi Hobli, Mandya Taluk on 31/5/1946. By a registered sale deed, the aforesaid land was sold to the husband of respondent No.1 on 9/8/1977. After a period of 20 years, the appellant filed an application seeking resumption of the land under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short.

3. The Assistant Commissioner, by an order dtd. 31/1/2003, allowed the application preferred by the appellant. In the appeal, the aforesaid order was affirmed. Thereupon, respondent Nos.1 to 6 challenged the order in a writ petition before the learned Single Judge which has been allowed by an order dtd. 27/11/2018.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised a singular contention that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that there was a total prohibition invoked at the relevant time. It is further submitted that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

6. 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 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.

7. Admittedly, in the instant case, the land in question was alienated on 9/8/1977 and an application under the Act seeking resumption of the land was filed after a delay of 20 years. The delay in making the application seeking resumption of the land does not entitle the appellant to seek any relief. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been appreciated neither by the Assistant Commissioner nor the Deputy Commissioner. The learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. The delay in filing the application for resumption of land is 20 years for which no explanation has been offered. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

8. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly dismissed.