IMPORTANT POINT
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 between laches and statutory limitations.

JUDGMENT :

(PER: HON’BLE KRISHNA S.DIXIT)

This intra-court appeal seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 23.01.2024 whereby private respondents’ W.P. No.67352/2011 (KLR-RES) having been favoured, the orders of Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner for resumption of land under the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘the 1978 Act’), have been quashed and, as a consequence, appellant’s application filed for resumption has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- grantee vehemently argues that the rejection of the earlier applications for resumption having not been made on merits do not come in the way of making a fresh claim for resumption, as observed by the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner in their resumption orders; learned Single Judge in holding to the contra has grossly erred in law; the question of dealing in making resumption application would pale into insignificance in view of Karnataka Act No.30 of 2023 whereby the 1978 Act has been amended, to the effect that there shall be no limitation of time to invoke the provisions of the 1978 Act. Counsel submits that, this aspect having been lost sight of, there is error apparent on the face of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. Learned Government Advocate also maintained the same stand.

3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

(a) The subject land does not answer the definition of ‘granted land’ in terms of Section 2(b) of the 1978 Act cannot be much disputed, inasmuch as the grant was not on account of social status of the grantee. The said grant was originally made in 1930 and later in 1958. The sale of this land happened vide registered Sale Deed dated 05.12.1972. The buyer, in turn, sold a part of the land to one Mr.Mahadevappa vide registered Sale Deed dated 16.04.1976. Admittedly, the resumption application filed earlier was rejected vide order dated 30.12.2002 and appeal against the same also came to be turned down vide order 27.08.2004. Even prior to this, there were resumption orders that were set aside by a learned Single Judge in W.P. No.2608/2000 vide order dated 22.11.2000, remitting the matter back for fresh consideration. That is how the subsequent application came to be moved; that was rejected vide order dated 30.12.2002. Even appeal met the same fate vide order 23.12.2003.

(b) When above was the state of things as per record, it is ununderstandable as to how persons claiming under the original grantee could move another application afresh on 27.08.2004. The Assistant Commissioner could not have allowed the said application vide order dated 22.11.2004. It sounds strange that even the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal against the same vide order dated 17.03.2011. The records reveal that the first alienation took place vide Sale Deed dated 05.12.1972 and the subject application for resumption was filed on 27.08.2004. In the meanwhile, the Re-grant of the land was obtained since it was a “hereditary land” falling within the precincts of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. Apparently, there is a time gap of about thirty- two years spanning between alienation and the filing of resumption application. There is absolutely no explanation whatsoever for the laches that militate on record and against justice. Thus, the case squarely fits into the Apex Court decision in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs State Of Karnataka, (2020) 14 SCC 232, that tardy and belated claims should not be favoured. This reasoning has animated the impugned judgment, rightly and therefore, the same cannot be faltered.

(c) The vehement submission of learned counsel for the appellant that Act 30 of 2023 has amended the provisions of Section 5 of the 1978 Act by adding clauses (c) & (d) to sub-secti