Back
N. V. ANJARIA, K. V. ARAVIND
M. Manjula D/O. Late K. L. Muniyappa – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru District, Bengaluru – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N. V. ANJARIA, CJ.
Heard learned Advocate Mr. Saravana S for the appellants, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Advocate Mrs. Prakruthi Raju for learned Advocate Mr. Yeshu Babu Ramdutt Mishra for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
2. The present appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, preferred by the appellants-original petitioners is directed against judgment and order dated 10th June 2022 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.
2.1 In the writ petition, the appellants-petitioners challenged order dated 7th September 2021 passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru. It was next prayed to grant the land bearing Survey No.189 admeasuring 2 acres, situated at Kattigenahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, previously Devanahalli Taluka, Bangalore Rural District.
2.2 As per the aforementioned order dated 7th September 2021, appeal filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5-private parties-T.A. Balaji and another, came to be allowed. Learned Assistant Commissioner whose order was under challenge in appeal, directed restoration of land. As stated above, the appeal was allowed and the same came
Applications for restoration of land under the Act must be made within a reasonable time; unreasonable delay can bar relief despite the absence of a statutory limitation.
Unreasonable delay in restoration applications under statute undermines claims, establishing strict compliance with statutory timelines as essential for legal proceedings.
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....
Applications for resumption and restoration under welfare legislations must be filed within a reasonable period, as excessive delay impacts justiciability.
Point of law : Doctrine of reasonable period is not to punish the grantee who has negiected to assert his right but the same is propagated to protect those transferees who have maintained the possess....
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
