Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 3432
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO, MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF, JJ
SMT. RATHNAMMA @ MUNIRATHNAMMA – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER – Respondent
WA 724 of 2023
Unreasonable delay in seeking equitable relief can bar claims, distinguishing between limitation and laches, as established in relevant case law.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 12, 226 & 227 - Delay and laches in seeking equitable relief - The court emphasized that unreasonable delay in pursuing a claim can bar relief, as established in N. Murugesan [(2022) 2 SCC 25] and Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi [(2020) 14 SCC 232]. (Paras 4.6, 5, 6)
(B) Laches - Definition and implications - The court defined 'laches' as unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a claim, which can prejudice the other party, thus affecting the right to equitable relief. (Paras 5.1, 5.2)
Facts of the case:
The appellants, claiming to be legal heirs of the original grantee, faced dismissal of their writ petition due to a 33-year delay in approaching the Assistant Commissioner regarding land restoration. The learned Single Judge found no plausible explanation for the delay.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the dismissal of the appeal, stating that the delay of 12 years in seeking restoration of land was unreasonable and unjust.
Issues: The main issues included the reasonableness of the delay in filing the application for land restoration and the applicability of the principles of delay and laches.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the principles of delay and laches bar relief when there is an unreasonable delay in seeking equitable relief, emphasizing the distinction between limitation and laches.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)
This appeal lays a challenge to the order dated 13.08.2021 in Writ Petition No.7645/2020 whereby, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants by stating in paragraph No.4 as under:-
“4. It is found from the records that the application was filed by the petitioners who claim to be the legal heirs of the original grantee. Therefore, when this court sought for explanation for delay in filing the application, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were not aware of the transaction, and no sooner they became aware of the transaction, they approached the Assistant Commissioner. This explanation cannot be accepted since what has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that the aggrieved person should approach the Assistant Commissioner within reasonable time. As could be seen from the records the 1st petitioner is aged about 60 years and therefore even as on 01.01.1979 the 1st petitioner was major by age. Therefore, no plausible explanation could be offered at the hands of the petitioner for the inordinate delay.”
2. Suffice to state the challenge of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was to an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, who set aside the order of Assistant Commissioner restoring the land in favour of the appellants. The Deputy Commissioner while allowing the appeal has held that there was an enormous delay of 33 years on the part of the appellants approaching the Assistant Commissioner.
3. Learned Single Judge has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another, [(2020) 14 SCC 232] . We have already reproduced paragraph No.4 of the judgment. On a similar issue, even a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A.No.210/2023 dated 25.11.2024 has considered the judgments rendered by this Court and the Supreme Court and has in paragraph 4.6 onwards stated as under:-
“4.6 However, the aspects which emerged in light of the law laid down in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra), vis-à-vis the amendment in Section 5 and the situation obtained, came to be dealt with by the coordinate bench of this Court at Dharwad in Smt. Gouramma alias Gangamma vs. Deputy Commissioner, Haveri , which was Writ Appeal No.100101 of 2024 decided on 29th July 2024.
4.6.1 After noticing the amendment in Section 5, the division bench observed thus, in para 3(d),
"The Amendment Act that is made applicable with retrospective effect is only a duplication of the existing legal position. Such duplication happened even in English legislative history, hardly needs to be mentioned. The question of delay is a matter of limitation which this statute is silent about. Clauses (c) and (d), now introduced to Section 5(1) of the Act, do not bring any change in the statutory scheme. At the most, they are declaratory of what the statute has been all through, so far as the limitation period is concerned. Nobody disputes that there was no limitation period earlier and there is no limitation period now too. Laches, which would involve a host of factors, pertains to the Domain of Equity."
4.6.2 It was observed that in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra), did not speak of limitation period, but focused on the long lapse of time in making the application for restitution of the land, by quoting paragraph 8 above from the said decision, the division bench then held as per para 3(f),
"It may be true, that the legislative debates might have taken place about the observations of the Apex Court in Nekkanti and other such cases while passing the Amendment Bill. That per se does not lend credence to the contention that the said amendment intends to invalidate the law declared by the highest court of the country which it did after considering all aspects of the matter including the sense of equity & justice. If the Legislature intended to silence the voice of Nekkanti, it would have employed a d
