Unreasonable delay in restoration applications under statute undermines claims, establishing strict compliance with statutory timelines as essential for legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 24.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.13630/2014 (SC/ST).

2. Sri.V.K.Narayana Swamy, 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 appreciate the findings recorded by respondent Nos.2 and 3, wherein the appellant's application for restoration was allowed and the appeal of respondent Nos.4 and 5 was dismissed. It is further submitted that the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as '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. It is contended that the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition during the covid-19 pandemic without hearing the counsel appearing for the appellant herein. Hence, the review petition was filed, which also was dismissed. It is further contended that the appellant has filed an application for production of additional documents and along with the said application, the representations dated 10.05.1984 and 01.12.1988 are produced, which indicate that the appellant sought resumption of land well within the time, hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

3. Per contra, Sri.M.Shivaprakash, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 supports the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the Division Bench of this Court has considered the relevant aspects and held that if there is any unreasonable delay in filing an application for restoration, the same is liable to be rejected.

4. Learned counsel for impleading applicant/proposed respondent No.6 submits that the proposed respondent No.6 has purchased 2 acre of land out of 4 acres in Sy.No.31 from Lakshmidevamma/respondent No.4 vide registered sale deed dated 28.03.2022, which is not challenged by the appellants. Hence, he seeks to come on record and further submits that he being the purchaser, supports the order of the learned Single Judge.

5. Learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 supports the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 by contending that the appellants are the legal representatives of grantee and are entitled for resumption and restoration of land in their favour as the sale is in violation of the mandate of law.

6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsels for respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides.

7. The material on record indicates that the land measuring 4 acres 4 guntas in Sy.No.31 situated at Nayanahalli Village, Ambajidurga Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapura District, was granted to Sri.Muniga S/o.Avulappa in the year 1935-36 as he belonged to scheduled caste. The records further indicate that the legal representatives of the grantee initiated the proceedings under Section 5 of the Act. The respondent No.3 vide order dated 22.02.2010, allowed the application for restoration of land; being agg