Applications for resumption and restoration under welfare legislations must be filed within a reasonable period, as excessive delay impacts justiciability.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.36576/2018 (SC/ST).

2. Sri. Prasad Hegde K.B., learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in allowing the writ petition without appreciating the material available on record in its proper perspective. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to take note of the fact that the sale deed executed is in violation of the grant conditions and solely on the ground of delay, has proceeded to allow the writ petition. It is further submitted that the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act') is a welfare legislation with a specific object to protect the interests of the grantee and there is no limitation provided under the Act to file an application for restoration and resumption. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

3. Per contra, Sri.P.Nataraju, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 supports the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the learned Single Judge, after considering the material on record and the judicial precedents, has held that the application filed before the respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner is after an enormous delay of 8 years 11 months and 8 years 1 month from their respective sale deeds and the same cannot be held to be reasonable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 and 4 and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides.

5. The material on record indicates that one Sri.Kontha Madaiah, was granted land in Sy.No.37/B (New No.155) measuring 4 acres situated at Thamadahalli Village, Hanagodu Hobli, Hunsur Taluk, Mysore District, for an upset price vide grant order dated 31.07.1976 with a condition to not alienate the land for a period of 15 years. The appellants herein who are the legal heirs of the original grantee sold a portion of the land vide sale deed dated 20.02.2004 and rest of the portion of the land vide sale deed dated 18.01.2005. The appellants later filed an application before the respondent No.2 seeking restoration and resumption of the lands. The respondent No.2 vide order dated 27.04.2015 allowed the same and ordered for restoration and resumption. The said order was challenged before the respondent No.1 and the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 04.07.2017. The orders passed by the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 were assailed before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.36576/2018. The learned Single Judge, on considering the material on record and placing reliance on the relevant judicial precedents, allowed the writ petition and passed the impugned order. The learned Single Judge held that the application for restoration and resumption of lands was filed after a delay of 8 years 11 months and 8 year 1 month from the execution of the respective sale deeds and the said delay, in view of the law laid down cannot be termed to be within a reasonable time. We do not find any error in the said finding recorded by the learned Single Judge.

6. It would be useful to refer to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER , (2020) 14 SCC 232 , VIVEK M.H