Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 31350
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M.G. UMA, J
SHRI. SATTEPPA RAJAPPA BELAVI, SINCE DECEAED BY LRS.1A. SRI. HANAMANT S/O. SATYAPPA BELVI, SRI. GOPAL S/O. SATYAPPA BELVI, SMT. MAYAWWA, SMT. RAJASHREE – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BAILHONGAL, THE TAHASHILDAR GOKAK TALUK – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 106144 OF 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: H. M. DHARIGOND
For the Respondents: P.N.HATTI, AKSHAY KATTI, HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGI
Inordinate delay in land resumption applications undermines legal rights, requiring timely action as mandated by statutory provisions.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Land Reforms Act - Sections 4(2) and 37 - Writ of Certiorari filed to quash orders of Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner regarding land resumption - Land granted to Scheduled Caste’s mother, sale without prior permission contested based on alleged lapse of 12 years - Court found inordinate delay by applicant obstructs relief - Orders quashed to restore possession to lawful owner. (Paras 21, 22)
(B) Delay and Laches - Substantial delay of 34 years in filing resumption application considered unreasonable - Precedents affirming that prolonged delay undermines legal rights discussed. (Paras 11, 21)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought to annul prior orders permitting land resumption due to alleged unauthorized sale, asserting significant delay in action by officials. The sale took place well beyond the Statutory time frame.
Findings of Court:
In light of extensive delay and lack of justification for inaction by original grantee's heirs, the quashing of earlier orders was warranted to uphold justice.
Issues: Core issues revolved around the legality of land sale terms in relation to time limits imposed by legislation and rights of original grantee's heirs.
Ratio Decidendi: Courts ruled that statutory provisions addressing the time-sensitive nature of resumption requests must be adhered to, and long delays nullify claims to land.
Result: Petition granted; prior orders quashed and possession restored.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek to annul previous orders on land resumption. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. legal representatives of deceased presented; original grantee's delay examined. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. respondents argue legality of transaction under sc/st regulations. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court deliberates on delay impacting resumption applications' validity. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. ruling favors timely legal actions; orders quashed. (Para 21 , 22) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have approached this Court, seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order dated Nil.11.2010 passed by respondent No.2-the Assistant Commissioner, produced as per Annexure-K and order dated 29.05.2014 passed by respondent No.1-the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum, produced as per Annexure-L, confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
2. Heard Sri.H.M.Dharigond, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri Akshay Katti, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 8 and 9(a) and Sri.Havaragi, learned counsel for respondent No.5(a), 6, 7 and 9(a). Perused the materials on record.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the land in question was granted to the mother of respondent No.4 on 25.09.1982 under Section 37 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KLR Act’ for short). The original grantee sold the said land in favour of the petitioner under a registered Sale Deed dated 24.02.1998. Later during 2009, the Tahsildar has suo moto taken up the matter, and submitted a report to the Assistant Commissioner, and had issued notice to both the parties for resumption of land under Section 4 (2) of the KLR Act. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the said application, and ordered resumption/restoration of the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. The said order was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. The facts as narrated above are not in dispute.
Initially, this Court had allowed this writ petition vide order dated 16.11.2022. The said order was challenged by the legal representatives of respondent Nos.4 and 5 by preferring W.A.No.100015/2023. The Division Bench of this Court, allowed the said writ appeal on the ground that, the order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the Co- ordinate Bench states that, respondent No.4- Smt.Ranawwa and respondent No.5-Smt.Dundawwa have died on 16.08.2019 and 04.05.2021 respectively, and therefore, it was held that the order in question was against the dead persons. Accordingly, the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration after impleading the legal representatives of deceased respondent Nos.4 and 5.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed a memo reporting that, the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.4 are already brought on record as respondent Nos.6 to 8 and the legal representative of deceased respondent No.5-Sri. Vasanth, the party in the writ appeal, is cited as one of the respondents in this writ petition. Thus, it is stated that, all the parties concerned are on record before this Court.
6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the Tahsildar has assumed jurisdiction suo-moto and filed application before the Assistant Commissioner after execution of the registration of the Sale Deed on 24.02.1998, by the original grantee in favour of the petitioners. Admittedly, the Tahsildar took up the initiation, and submitted the report to the Assistant Commissioner, who in turn, registered the case for resumption of the land under Section 4 (2) of the KLR Act during 2010. It is after lapse of 12 years from the date of the sale deed. There is absolutely no reason assigned as to why there is long lapse of 12 years in initiating the proceedings for resumption of the land.
7. Per contra, learned High Co
