Unreasonable delay in seeking land restoration under the Act results in dismissal, emphasizing laches principles.

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

Heard learned advocate for the appellants-applicants and learned Government Advocate Mr. K. S. Harish who appeared upon service of copy of the appeal as well as delay condonation application in advance.

2. While dealing with the question of grant or otherwise, the prayer to condone the delay of 1457 days which has occurred in preferring the present appeal, the papers contain the impugned judgment and order of learned Single Judge and the Court had a benefit to look into the merits of the impugned order itself. By the impugned order, the petition came to be dismissed.

3. The prayer was made by the petitioners seeking to set aside the orders dated 27.09.1985 and 10.10.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, whereby the prayer of the petitioners to restore the land bearing Sy.No.57/12 situated at Balagere Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) was rejected.

4. The ground on which learned Single Judge upheld the orders of the competent authorities to dismiss the petition was that the petitioners who were heirs of the original grantee had approached the Authorities with a plea of breach of the provisions of the Act and for consequential restoration of the land to them, after a gap of 25 years. It was not in dispute that the sale deed was effected in favour of the purchaser in the year 1960 and the proceedings for restoration by the petitioners were initiated after a delay of more than 25 years in the year 1984-85. The petitioners were never vigilant or diligent, observed learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition on the said ground of inordinate delay in approaching the Authority under the Act.

5. The issue is covered by the decision of this Court in Smt. M. Manjula and others Vs. The Deputy Commissioner , Bangalore and others, which was Writ Appeal No.210 of 2023, decided on 25.11.2024. The relevant discussion from the said decision in Smt. M. Manjula, supra, is extracted hereinbelow to be part of this Court and to be extracted for this Court,

"3.3 While setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the aspect weighed with the Deputy Commissioner was that the land was alienated and transferred in favour of the appellants-Balaji and others, as the respondents herein, in the year 1995 and that the appellant- petitioner sought restoration thereof in the year 2007-2008 after lapse of about more than 11 years which was not a reasonable period, but amounted to inordinate delay.

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 (1) and (2) are made applicable to the sale of any land in execution of any decree or award, etc., of the Court. Section 5 of the Act deals with the resumption and restitution of granted lands.

4.2 Section 5 as it stood originally, reads as under,

"5. Resum