Unreasonable delay of 35 years in seeking restoration of land barred the application under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, reinforcing the principle that laches can preclude relief even without a statutory limitation period.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

Heard learned advocate Mr. Md. Akram for learned advocate Mr. Rahamathulla Kothwal for the appellant, learned Government Advocate Mr. K.S. Harish for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate Mr. R. Shashidhara for respondent Nos.3 to 6.

2. The appellant is the original petitioner who has challenged the judgment and order dated 27.08.2021 of learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition of the petitioner came to be dismissed.

2.1 The challenge in the writ petition was against the order dated 06.11.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner, who was the heir of the original grantee of the land, was aggrieved by the orders of the Assistant Commissioner confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner who rejected the application of the petitioner for restoration and restitution of the land under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.

3. Noticing the basic facts, the land bearing Survey No.11 of Maskal Hobli, Kasaba Hobli, Hiriyur Taluka, admeasuring 5 Acres was granted to one Ganga Naik by the order dated 07.12.1955. The grantee sold the land to one Mari Tevar by the Sale Deed dated 11.09.1967. Thereafter, a transaction of Gift Deed dated 27.10.2009 took place and the land came to be gifted in favour of one Meenakshi.

3.1 It appears that an application was made by Ganga Naik, who was the original grantee, before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2015 invoking the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1978 seeking restoration on the ground that the alienation of the land was in breach of the provisions of the Act.

3.2 It appears that the Assistant Commissioner notices that the land was granted on 07.12.1995 for upset price. In terms of the then prevailing Mysore Land Revenue Rules, the land was granted on the condition that it shall not be alienated for a period of ten years from the date of grant. The Assistant Commissioner noted that the first transaction was, however, after ten years of the grant and was in compliance of the Rules. The Assistant Commissioner, therefore, held that the transaction was not in violation of the conditions of grant. Thereafter, the order of the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the application was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner in a statutory appeal which was dismissed.

3.3 In addition to the above aspect that the transaction was found not to be in violation of the conditions of grant, learned Single Judge noted that there was a delay of 35 years when the original grantee approached the authorities under the aforesaid Act of 1978. It was observed and held on the basis of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER ([2020] 14 SCC 232) that 35 years was unreasonable delay and on the ground of delay and laches, the authorities rightly not entertained the application.

4. The legal provisions and development of law in the subject deserve to be noticed. While ‘granted land’ is defined in Section 3(b) of the Act, Section 4 of the Act deals with the prohibition of transfer of granted lands, to provide that notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or commencement of the Act, in terms of the contravention of the grant or in contravention of the law in that regard or in breach of sub-Section (2) of Section 4 , such transfer shall be treated as null and void, not to give any right, title or interest in favour of the person to whom the land is transferred.

4.1 As per sub-Section (2), no person shall after commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government. Under sub-Section (3), the provisions in sub-Sections