Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 10538
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
M.G. UMA, J
Shrikanth Gouda S/o. G. Doddana Gouda – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner, Bellary – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 83444 OF 2013 (SCST)
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SMT. V. VIDYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3; SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R6
Inordinate delay in seeking land resumption under the PTCL Act can bar claims, as established by the court's reliance on precedents emphasizing delay and laches.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 - Sections 4 and 5 - Writ petition seeking to quash orders of Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner regarding land resumption - Petitioners purchased land in 1987; respondent No.3 sought resumption after 34 years - Delay and laches in filing application defeats respondent's claim - Court emphasized that equitable relief is denied due to inordinate delay. (Paras 4.4, 11, 12)
(B) Delay and laches - The principle that unreasonable delay in seeking relief can bar a claim is affirmed, as reiterated in various Supreme Court judgments. (Paras 4.4, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners purchased land granted to the father of respondent No.3, who later sought resumption under the PTCL Act after a significant delay.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the delay of 34 years in filing the application for resumption was unreasonable and that the original grantee did not seek resumption during his lifetime.
Issues: The main issues were the delay in filing the application for resumption and whether the conditions of the grant were violated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the application for resumption was barred by delay and laches, emphasizing that the original grantee's failure to act during his lifetime further weakened the respondent's claim.
Result: The petition is allowed, and the impugned orders are set aside.
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 28/06/2008 passed by respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner, produced as per Annexure-B and the order dated 18/09/2013 passed by respondent No.1 – the Deputy Commissioner, produced as per Annexure-A, confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
2. Heard Sri.Chetan Munnoli, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. P. N. Hatti, learned HCGP for respondents No.1 and 2, Sri.V. Vidya, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.3 and Sri.Girish A. Yadawad, learned counsel for respondent No.6. Perused the materials on record.
3. The case of petitioners is that;
3.1. As per Annexure-D, the land measuring 6.83 acres, situated at M.Sugur Village, Siruguppa Taluk, Ballari District, was granted in favor of the father of respondent No.3, by name Mallappa. However, the said Harijan Mallappa sold the land to three different persons, under sale deeds dated 11/05/1970. Those three persons have, in turn, sold the said 6.83 acres of land in favour of the petitioner, under a registered sale deed dated 11/08/1987.
3.2. It was only on 08/10/2004, that respondent No.3 filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PTCL Act’, for short), seeking resumption of the land.
3.3. The said application was considered by the Assistant Commissioner, who allowed the same to set aside the sale deeds executed by Mallappa and the subsequent sale deeds. When this order of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner by the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the said order by dismissing the Revision. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that;
4.1. The grant order, the copy of which is produced as per Annexure-D, does not specify that the land was granted to the father of respondent No.3, simply because he belonged to the Scheduled Caste, it cannot be concluded that the land was granted to him as he belongs to such category.
4.2. Secondly, it is his contention that, Annexure-D is in Telugu language and in a printed format, with only the last condition restricting alienation for a period of 15 years, being subsequently overwritten in Kannada. However, no explanation is provided as to who wrote it and when. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when similar formats of grants are taken into consideration, none of such grants contain a condition similar to that found in the present Annexure-D.
4.3. Thirdly, it is his contention that, there is inordinate delay and laches on the part of respondent No.3 in filing the application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The grant was made on 31/05/1957, and the sale deeds were executed on 11/05/1970, but respondent No.3 has filed the application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act on 08/10/2004, i.e., after a lapse of about 35 years.
4.4. He places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court inNekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another , [(2020) 14 SCC 232] , to contend that, inordinate delay and laches defeats the right, if any, of respondent No.3. He also relies on a similar decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vivek M. Hinduja and Others v. Ashwatha and Others , [(2020) 14 SCC 228]
4.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Smt.Gouramma alias Gangamma v. Deputy Commissioner, Haveri District , [W.A.No.100101 of 2024 dated 29.07.2024], and Smt. Manjula and Others v. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District , [W.P.No.210 of 2023 dated 25.11.2024], in support of his contention. In both cases, the Division Benches of this Court, following the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra), held that, inordinate delay and l
