Delay in seeking annulment under statutory provisions must be reasonable; innocent purchasers should not suffer due to delay and laches by others.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar, J.

1. The core issue in these appeals is whether passage of time would impact enforcement of statutory rights.

2. Facts, admitted as they are, may first be noted: Late Somalanayak, the father of Neelyanayak, respondent No.5 herein, was allotted 4 acres of agricultural land in Survey No. 56 (old), New Survey No. 86, Baragenahalli, Lakkavalli Hobli, Tarikere Taluk, Chikmagalur District, Karnataka, under Government Grant dated 22.03.1957. This grant was made under the Depressed Class Rules in the Land Revenue Code with an express condition that the land should not be alienated for a period of 15 years. However, Somalanayak sold the land under registered sale deed dated 20.02.1964 to one Bomme Gowda. In turn, Ningamma, the wife of late Bomme Gowda, sold the land to one K.G. Rajanna under registered sale deed dated 26.12.1974. K.G. Rajanna then sold the land to one N. Indramma and others under registered sale deed dated 25.03.1996. On 02.03.2001, N. Indramma and others sold the land to the present appellant under a registered sale deed of the same date.

3. In the interregnum, the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [for short, ‘the Act of 1978’] came into force with effect from 01.01.1979. Section 4 thereof is titled ‘Prohibition of transfer of granted lands’ and states that, notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of the said Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant, shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to have been conveyed by such transfer. Section 5 thereof, titled ‘Resumption and restitution of granted lands’, provides under sub-section (1) to the effect that, on an application by any interested person or on information given in writing by any person or suo motu, and after such enquiry as he deems necessary, the Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that the transfer of any granted land is null and void under Section 4 (1) of the Act of 1978, he may, by order, take possession of such land after evicting all persons in possession thereof, in such manner as may be prescribed, and restore such land to the original grantee or his legal heir. Notably, Somalanayak belonged to Lambani caste, a Scheduled Caste.

4. However, it was only in the year 2007 that Neelyanayak, respondent No.5, filed a petition under Section 4 of the Act of 1978 before the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere, praying that the sale transactions in respect of the subject land be declared null and void and to deliver possession to him. This petition was dated 17.09.2007/06.10.2007 and was taken on file in Case No.SC/ST.19/2007-08 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tarikere. By order dated 12.12.2008 passed therein, the Sub-Divisional Officer held that the original grant was made under the Depressed Class Rules in favour of Somalanayak, who belonged to a Scheduled Caste, and it was therefore covered by the prohibitory mandate of Section 4 of the Act of 1978. The Officer accordingly held that the first sale and all the transactions thereafter relating to the said land were null and void and ordered restitution under Section 5 (1) to the widow of Somalanayak, the original grantee. Thereupon, the appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Chikmagalur, in PTL No.30/2008-09, but the same was dismissed by order dated 07.12.2009.

5. Challenging both the orders, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.5246 of 2010 before the Karnataka High Court. By order dated 19.02.2010, a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissed the said writ petition. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed Writ Appeal No.1500 of 2010. She also filed an application in Misc.W.No.6108 of 2010 therein, seeking permission to urge additional grounds in the interest of justice