Claims under statutory provisions must be initiated within a reasonable time despite the absence of an explicit limitation period as upheld by previous Supreme Court rulings.

JUDGMENT :

R. DEVDAS, J.

1. The appellants are aggrieved of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.83444/2013 dated 21.03.2025.

2. A brief background in which the respondents No.3 to 7 had filed the writ petition is required to be stated. Initially it was Srikanth Gowda who had filed the writ petition in the year 2013 and after his demise during the course of the proceedings, his legal representatives were brought on record.

3. The appellant herein filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, the ‘Act’) on 08.10.2004, seeking to declare the sale deeds dated 11.05.1970 executed by Harijana Mallappa is void, in terms of the provisions of the Act. It was contended that 6.83 acres of land situated at M. Sugur village, Siruguppa Taluk, Ballari District, was granted in favour of the appellant’s father Sri Harijana Mallappa and that the grant came with a condition of non alienation for a period of 15 years. However the lands were sold in favour of three different persons under three separate sale deeds, all dated 11.05.1970, in violation of the conditions of the grant. The Assistant Commissioner, after verifying the records found that under grant order bearing No. DR/RDS/30/67 dated 31.08.1957 the lands in question were granted in favour of Harijana Mallappa, and in terms of the Rules prevailing in the year 1957, namely, Madras Board Standing Orders, the granted lands could not be alienated for a period of 15 years. The Assistant Commissioner found that the lands could not be alienated till 30.08.1972. However since admittedly the lands were sold under three registered sale deeds, dated 11.05.1970, the same was in violation of the conditions of grant. Therefore the Assistant Commissioner proceeded to declare that the sale deeds were void and directed the lands to be resumed from the purchasers and to be restored in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee.

4. Sri Srikanth Gowda, aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, approached the Deputy Commissioner invoking the appeal provision contained in Sec. 5A of the Act. However the appeal was dismissed at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner on 18.09.2013. The Writ Petition was filed in the year 2013.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petition has been allowed on the ground that the application before the Assistant Commissioner was filed by the appellant herein on 08.10.2004, after lapse of about 35 years from the date when which the sale deeds were executed. The learned Single Judge has upheld the contentions of the writ petitioners that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and another , (2020) 14 SCC 232 and Vivek M. Hinduja and Others vs. Ashwatha and Others , (2020) 14 SCC 228 , has declared that if an application is filed before the Assistant Commissioner invoking the provisions of the Act after an inordinate delay, it defeats the right, if any, vested in favour of the applicant and therefore on the ground of delay and laches the application should have been rejected. However, learned counsel for the appellant submits that when similar orders were passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ningappa V. Deputy Commissioner and Others in Civil Appeal No. 3131/2007 dated 14.07.2011, which is subsequently reported in (2020) 14 SCC 236, that since the application