Writ Petition No. 3115 of 2022 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.3115 OF 2022 (KVOA) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRs. 1(a) SMT. ANJINAMMA, S/O LATE MUNIVENATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, 1(b) SRI GOPAL BAUDHA S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. BOTH R/O DODDATHIMMASANDRA SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT PIN CODE-562125. SRI RAMU S/O GUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, NO.4, 4TH MAIN NEAR BUS STAND, DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560076. 3. SMT. JAYAMMA @ JAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE CHOKKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O BALLUR VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, PIN CODE-562107. SMT. ANJINAMMA D/O LATE CHOKKAPPA, W/O NARAYANSWAMY, R/O BHODHANAHOSAHALLI, SAMATHANAHALLI POST, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560067. SRI C.M. NARAYANSWAMY S/O LATE MINCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O NO.66, VALAGERE KALLAHALLI, SARJAPUA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, PIN CODE-562125. SRI VENKATACHALAPPA S/O LATE GHOTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O NO.151, CHAMUNDESWARI TEMPLE SADARAMANGALA, KADUGODI, BENGALURU-560067. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O NO.38, S.C.COLONY, BEHIND LAKSHMINARAYANA SWAMY TEMPLE, BULLUR, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562107. SMT. MANJULA @ MANJAMMA W/O LATE RAMANJANEYA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O KOTTANUR DINNE, J.P.NAGAR, 8TH PHASE, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, PIN CODE-560076. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 9. 10. 11. SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, SMT. ALUMELAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NOS.9 TO 11 ARE R/O. THIRUPALYA JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 099. 12. SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 13. SRI RAJANNA S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, NOS.12 & 13 ARE R/O DODDATHIMMASANDRA SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT PIN CODE 562125. SINCE DEAD BY LRs. 13(a) SMT. PAPAMMA W/O. LATE RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 13(a) SMT. R. DEEPA D/O. LATE RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING AT NOS.13(a) & 13(b) R/O. DODDATHIMMASANDRA SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562125. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 … PETITIONERS (IMPLEADED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 12/04/2023) 14. SMT. ANUSUYAMMA W/O LATE SRIRAMA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O DODDATHIMMASANDRA SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT PIN CODE 562125. (PETITIONERS 1(a), 6 & 12 ARE NOT CLAIMED SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT) (BY SRI N.B.N. SWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE TAHASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL 562106. BENGALURU DISTRICT.
Legal Reasoning
places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Lakshmana Gowda and others vs. State of Karnataka and others2 (Lakshmana Gowda) and contends that similar question fell for consideration before the division bench of this Court, wherein it is clearly observed that the sale during the non-alienation period without prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner would not render the sale null and void and it is a curable defect. 12. Having heard the counsel appearing for the parties, the points that fall for consideration are: “(1) Whether the sale of the petition lands during the non-alienation period makes the sale deeds null and void or is it a curable defect in light of proviso to sub-clause (3) of Section 5 of the KVOA Act? 2 ILR 1980 KAR 892 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 (2) Whether the order of the Tahsildar rejecting the petition filed under Section 5 (4) of the KVOA Act on the ground of delay and laches is justified?” 13. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the submissions made on both sides and perused the material on record. Point No.I 14. The KVOA Act came into force on 01.02.1963 an Act to abolish the Village Offices in the State of Karnataka. Section 2(b) of the KVOA Act defines ‘Authorized Holder’ which reads as under: “2. Definitions.–(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,– (a) x x x (b) “Authorised holder” means a person in whose favour a land granted or continued in respect of, or annexed to, a village office by the State or a part thereof has been validly alienated permanently, whether by sale, gift, - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 partition or otherwise, under the existing law relating to such village offices.” 15. Section 2(g) defines ‘Holder of a village office’ or ‘Holder’ means a person having an interest in a village office under an existing law relating to such office. 16. Section 2(m) defines ‘Unauthorized holder’ means a person in possession of a land granted or continued in respect of or annexed to a village office by the State without any right, or under any lease, mortgage, sale, gift or any other kind of alienation thereof, which is null and void under the existing law, relating to such village office. 17. Section 3 of the KVOA Act defines the ‘Power of the Deputy Commissioner to decide certain questions and appeals’, namely, a) Whether any land was granted or continued in respect of or annexed to a village office by the State, or - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 b) Whether any person is a holder of a village office, or c) Whether any person is an authorized holder, or an unauthorized holder, the Deputy Commissioner shall, after giving the party affected an opportunity to be heard and after holding an enquiry in the prescribed manner, decide the question. 18. Further, any person aggrieved by such decision may file an appeal to the District Judge of the District within 90 days of such decision and the decision of the District Judge on such appeal shall be final. 19. Section 4 of the KVOA Act prescribes as under: “4. Abolition of village office together with incidents thereof.- Notwithstanding anything in any usage, custom, settlement, grant, agreement, sanad, or in any decree or order of a Court, or in an existing law relating to village offices, with effect on and from the appointed date.- (1) all village offices shall be and are hereby abolished; - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 (2) all incidents (including the right to hold office and the emoluments attached thereto, the right to levy customary fees or perquisites in money or in kind and the liability to render service) appertaining to the said village offices shall be and are hereby extinguished; (3) subject to the provisions of Section 5, Section 6 and Section 7, all land granted or continued in respect of or annexed to a village office by the State shall be and is hereby resumed, and shall be subject to the payment of land revenue under the provisions of the Code and the rules and orders made thereunder as if it were an unalienated land or ryotwari land.” 20. Section 5 of the KVOA Act reads as under: “5. Re-grant of land resumed under Section 4 to the holder of the village office.— (1) A land resumed under clause (3) of Section 4 shall, in cases not falling under Section 6 and Section 7, be granted to the person who was the holder of the village office immediately prior to the appointed date (hereinafter referred to as the holder) on payment, by or on behalf of such holder - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 to the State Government, of the occupancy price equal to three times in the case of holders of inferior village offices and six times in the case of holders of other village offices, the amount of the full assessment of such land within the prescribed period and in the prescribed manner and the holder shall be deemed to be an occupant or holder of a ryotwari patta within the meaning of the Code in respect of such land and shall primarily be liable to pay land revenue to the State Government from the appointed date in accordance with the provisions of the Code and the rules and orders made thereunder; and all the provisions of the Code and the rules and orders relating to unalienated land or ryotwari land shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, apply to the said land: Provided that in respect of land which was not assigned under an existing law relating to the village office as the remuneration of the village office, an occupancy price equal to the amount of the full assessment of such land in the case of holders of inferior village offices and three times such amount in the case of holders of other village offices, shall be paid by or on behalf of the holder for its re-grant. (2) If, there is a failure to pay the occupancy price under sub-section (1) within the - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 prescribed period and in the prescribed manner, the holder shall be deemed to be unauthorisedly occupying the land and shall be liable to be summarily evicted therefrom by the Deputy Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of the Code. (3) The occupancy or the ryotwari patta of the land, as the case may be, re-granted under sub-section (1) shall not be transferable otherwise than by partition among members of Hindu Joint Family for a period of fifteen years from the date of re-grant made on or after the date of commencement of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition (Amendment) Act, 2003. Provided that such occupancy or the ryotwari patta in respect of land granted to the holder of a village office in an enfranchised inam shall be transferable with the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner which shall be granted on payment of an amount equal to fifteen times the amount of full assessment of the land. (4) Any transfer of land in contravention of sub-section (3) shall be null and void and the land so transferred shall, as penalty, be forfeited to and vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances and any person in possession - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 thereof shall be summarily evicted therefrom by the Deputy Commissioner and the land shall be
Arguments
3. SRI C.R. MANOHAR S/O P. RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 4. SRI C.R. GOPAL S/O P. RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, NO.3 & 4 R/O DWARAKA NILAYA, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562125. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 5. SRI RADHAKRISHNA HEGDE S/O LATE SUBBARAYA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O NO.6/7, RAJBHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 6. M/S. RAVITHEJA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD., NO.13/1, SURAJ BRIGADES, SAHAKARANGAR, BENGALURU-560092 REPTD. BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI.M. JANARDHAN. 7. TELECOM EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD., #23, 1ST FLOOR, NEHARU NAGARA MAIN ROAD, BEHIND REDDY PETROL BUNK, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560020. REPTD. BY ITS AUTHORIZED DIRECTOR, SRI C.V. MANJUNATH. (BY SRI B.S. GURUSWAMY, AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2; SRI RAVI PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-4; SRI MALLIKARJUN N.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI A. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 & R-7; SRI K.K. VASANTH ADVOCATE FOR R-6) … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING ANNEXURE-Z THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, THE TAHASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK IN CASE NO.VOA/CR/12/2020- 21, DATED 30.09.2021 AND SET ASIDE THE SAME AS BEING ARBITRARY ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW; QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 WHICH IS PRODUCED WHICH IS PRODUCED ANNEXURE-Z. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 30.09.2021 in case number VOA/CR/12/2020-21 passed by the Tahsildar-respondent No.2, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 5 (4) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘KVOA Act’ for short) seeking restoration of lands in question was rejected. 2. Brief facts are that, one Muniga alias Pillahallga was the Barawardar of the village office, he was in possession and cultivation of 5 thoti service inam lands situated at Doddathimmasandra, Sarjapur hobli, Anekal taluk as under: (1) Sy. No.2 measuring 3 acres 22 guntas; (2) Sy./No.102 measuring 29 guntas; (3) Sy. No.182 measuring 23 guntas; (4) Sy.No.138 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas and (5) Sy.No.210 measuring 1 acre 1 guntas. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 3. After coming into force of the KVOA Act, the village offices stood abolished, all the incidents appertaining to the said village offices were extinguished and all land granted or continued to or annexed to a village office by the State stood resumed to the Government. Under Section 5 of the KVOA Act the land resumed other than under Sections 6 or 7 of the KVOA Act would be granted to the person who was the holder of the village office immediately prior to the appointed date on payment of the occupancy price to the Government and the occupant would deemed to be as an occupant or holder of the said land from the appointed date. 4. Application was filed by one H Ramesh and the petitioners, for re-grant of the petition lands stated supra. Accordingly, the petition lands were re-granted to the petitioners as legal heirs of late Sri Muniga alias Pillahallga on 18.04.2006, by the Tahsildar with a condition not to alienate for a period of 15 years, based on the re-grant, revenue entries were effected in favour of the petitioners. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 The petitioners executed registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) and registered agreement of sale in respect of the petition lands in favour of respondent No.3, sale deed was executed in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in respect of Sy. No.138 and in respect of Sy. No.2 in respect of respondent No.4. Respondent No.3 alienated the other petition lands by executing sale deeds on the strength of GPA executed by the petitioners. 5. The petitioners filed an application under Section 5(4) of the KVOA Act seeking to set aside the sale deeds and to hold the sales to be null and void, as it is in contravention to the conditions of re-grant, the sale is within 15 years from the date of re-grant contrary to sub Section (3) of Section 5 and Section 7 of KVOA Act. 6. The petition was contested by the respondents contending that pursuant to the application filed by the legal heirs of the original grantee, permission was granted for sale and the respondents have purchased the properties, the sale is not contrary to the re-grant order or - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 to sub-section (3) of Section 5 of KVOA Act. To the mutation entry affected in the name of the purchasers, one of the legal heirs of the re-grantee had objected, the Deputy Tahsildar after enquiry mutated the name of the respondents. 7. Respondent No.2-the Tahsildar by the impugned order rejected the application on the ground of delay and laches. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners would urge the following grounds: i. That the petitioners were re-granted the petition lands subject to the condition that they shall not alienate the re-granted lands for a period of 15 years, that the alienation took place during the non-alienation period violating - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 the re-grant order, no prior permission was obtained by the petitioners from the Deputy Commissioner for alienation. The sale deeds executed are to be set aside and the scheduled lands have to be resumed to the Government restoring the lands in favour of the petitioners, as there is a clear violation of Sections 5 (3) and 7A of the KVOA (Amended) Act, 2003. ii. That the Tahsildar has erroneously passed the order without proper reasoning, except citing delay in approaching the authority, despite the KVOA Act containing no provision imposing a limitation on such application. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents mainly contends that the Tahsildar has rejected the petition on the ground of delay and laches, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Ram Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 and another1 (Nekkanti Ram Lakshmi), it is submitted that there is no time limit prescribed under the KVOA Act for the applicant to seek restoration, however, the law prescribes that the aggrieved party must take action within a reasonable time, seeking restoration nearly after 15 years cannot be termed as a reasonable time, the fact which has been rightly considered by the Tahsildar. It is submitted that the original provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the KVOA Act, the legislature provided an absolute bar to transfer the re-granted land without previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner, on payment of an amount equal to 15 times of the amount of full assessment of the land. Post amendment, with effect from 07.08.1978, gave a cap for a period of 15 years from the date of commencement of Section 1 of KVOA (Amended) Act, 1978 without a rider. The Amended Act 22 of 2003 with effect from 09.05.2003 provides a cap of 15 years proviso to sub-Section (3) of Section 5 puts a 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 rider similar to the original sub-Section (3) of Section 5 of the KVOA Act. 11. Learned counsel for the private respondents
Decision
disposed of in accordance with the law applicable to the disposal of unoccupied unalienated lands: Provided that if the person who has transferred the land in contravention of sub-section (3) is not alive, while disposing of such land preference shall be given to the heirs of such person. (5) Nothing in sub-section (3) shall apply to transfer in favour of the State Government, a co- operative society and a bank as security for loans granted for improvements of such land or for raising crops on such land or for buying cattle or agricultural implements for the cultivation of such land.” (Emphasis supplied) 21. Sub-Section (3) of Section 5 has been substituted thrice, Sub-Section (3) of Section 5 has stood on the date of enactment, after amendment dated 07.08.1978 and after 2003 amendment w.e.f. 09.05.2003, is extracted in a tabular form. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 After amendment w.e.f. 07.08.1978 The occupancy or Amended Act 22 of 2003 w.e.f. 09.05.2003 or The occupancy 07.08.1978 Before amendment The occupancy or ryotwari patta of the ryotwari patta of the ryotwari patta of the land, as the case may land, as the case may land, as the case may be, re-granted under be, re-granted under be, re-granted under sub-section (1) shall sub-section (1) shall not sub-section (1) shall not be transferable be transferable not be transferable otherwise than by otherwise than by otherwise than by partition among partition among partition among members of the Hindu members of the Hindu members of the Hindu Joint Family without joint family for a joint family without the previous sanction period of 15 years the previous sanction of the Deputy from the date of of the Deputy Commissioner and such commencement of Commissioner and sanction shall be Section 1 of the such sanction shall granted only on Karnataka Village be granted only on payment of an amount Abolition payment of amount, equal to fifteen times (Amendment) Act, equal to fifteen times the amount of full 1978. the amount of full assessment of the land assessment of the land 22. The proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 5 is inserted by Act No.27 of 1984 with effect from 04.05.1984, proviso envisages that such occupancy or the ryotwari patta in respect of the land granted to the holder of a village office in an enfranchised inam shall be transferable with the previous sanction of the Deputy - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 Commissioner on payment of an amount equal to fifteen times the amount of full assessment of the land. 23. The proviso to this sub-section allows for transfer of the re-granted land with the prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner and upon payment of an amount equal to fifteen times the full assessment of the land. This amendment reinstated the provision for transfer with permission, which had been removed by the earlier 1978 Amendment. 24. Section 5(4) of the KVOA Act addresses the consequences of transferring granted land in violation of the restrictions outlined in Section 5(3) stating that any transfer made in contravention of sub-section (3) is deemed null and void. Proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 5 stipulates that the land granted to the holder of the village office shall be transferable with the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner on payment of an amount equal to fifteen times the amount of full assessment of the land. Proviso to sub-section (3) of - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 Section 5 inserted by Act No.27 of 1984 is similar to sub- section (3) of Section 5 as it stood before amendment in the year 1978. In Lakshmana Gowda’s case stated supra while dealing with sub-section (3) of Section 5 before and after amendment of 1978, observed that the absence of prior sanction did not render the transfer void, instead, the defect could be cured by obtaining ex-post facto sanction upon payment of the stipulated amount. 25. Therefore, while the defect of sale without prior permission under the original Section 5 (3) of KVOA Act could be cured by paying fifteen times the full assessment as affirmed in Lakshman Gowda’s case. Thus, the amendment of 2003 removed the restrictions imposed by the amendment of 1978 and restored the original provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 5, thus, 2003 amendment provides that the transfer within 15 years of the prohibition period is not null and void but is curable and therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 sale is null and void falls to ground. Point No.I is answered accordingly. Point No.II 26. The sale has taken place by various sale deeds from 2009 and the last sale was in the year 2011. The application filed by the petitioners seeking resumption under Section 5(4) of the KVOA Act is in the year 2021, after a lapse of nearly 15 years from the date of the first sale. Though KVOA Act does not prescribe any limitation either for filing an application or for a suo moto proceedings by the Deputy Commissioner, the action initiated has to be within a reasonable time and a gross delay as in the instant case beyond reasonable time, the relief sought cannot be granted to such persons who have slept over the matter. That the time must be reckoned reasonably, not only in order to preserve rights and advantages which party possesses but equally to protect each party from losses he ought not to suffer. Thus - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 whether an action has been taken within a reasonable time must also be viewed from the point of view of the party who might suffer losses. 27. The disputed lands changed hands and the respondents are in possession from 2009. Such a long settled position could only be upset when there are compelling reasons and on making out an extremely strong case for restoration of the lands. The Apex Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav and others vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (Dead) through LRs and others3 (Chhedi Lal Yadav) has held that where no period of limitation is prescribed, the action must be taken, whether suo moto or on application of the parties within a reasonable time. The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi has observed that tardy and belated claims should not be favoured. The KVOA Act does not prescribe any limitation period. There is a mark difference between delay and laches. The Apex Court in the case of 3 (2018) 12 SCC 527 - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 Union of India and others vs. N. Murugesan and others4 (Union of India) held at para Nos.20, 21 and 22 as under : “Delay, laches and acquiescence 20. The principles governing delay, laches, and acquiescence are overlapping and interconnected on many occasions. However, they have their distinct characters and distinct elements. One can say that delay is the genus to which laches and acquiescence are species. Similarly, laches might be called a genus to a species by name acquiescence. However, there may be a case where acquiescence is involved, but not laches. These principles are common law principles, and perhaps one could identify that these principles find place in various statutes which restrict the period of limitation and create non-consideration of condonation in certain circumstances. They are bound to be applied by way of practice requiring prudence of the court than of a strict application of law. The underlying principle governing these concepts would be one of estoppel. The question of prejudice is also an important issue to be taken note of by the court. 4 (2022) 2 SCC 25 - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 Laches 21. The word “laches” is derived from the French language meaning “remissness and slackness”. It thus involves unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a claim involving an equitable relief while causing prejudice to the other party. It is neglect on the part of a party to do an act which law requires while asserting a right, and therefore, must stand in the way of the party getting relief or remedy. 22. Two essential factors to be seen are the length of the delay and the nature of acts done during the interval. As stated, it would also involve acquiescence on the part of the party approaching the court apart from the change in position in the interregnum. Therefore, it would be unjustifiable for a Court of Equity to confer a remedy on a party who knocks its doors when his acts would indicate a waiver of such a right. By his conduct, he has put the other party in a particular position, and therefore, it would be unreasonable to facilitate a challenge before the court. Thus, a man responsible for his conduct on equity is not expected to be allowed to avail a remedy.” - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 28. The Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi’s case, stated supra did not speak about limitation period, what was spoken was “the long lapse of time between the alienation of granted land and filing of the claim for its resumption” and at para No.8 held as under: “8. However, the question that arises is with regard to terms of Section 5 of the Act which enables any interested person to make an application for having the transfer annulled as void under Section 4 of the Act. This section does not prescribe any period within which such an application can be made. Neither does it prescribe the period within which suo motu action may be taken. This Court in Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav and also in Ningappa vs. Commr. reiterated a settled position in law that whether statute provided for a period of limitation, provisions of the statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. It is held that action whether on an application of the parties, or suo motu, must be taken within a reasonable time. That action arose under the provisions of a similar Act which provided for restoration of certain lands to farmers which were sold for arrears of rent or from which they were ejected for arrears of land from 1-1-1939 to - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 31-12-1950. This relief was granted to the farmers due to flood in Kosi River which make agricultural operations impossible. An application for restoration was made after 24 years and was allowed. It is in that background that this Court upheld that it was unreasonable to do so. We have no hesitation in upholding that the present application for restoration of land made by respondent Rajappa was made after an unreasonably long period and was liable to be dismissed on that ground. Accordingly, the judgments of the Karnataka High Court, namely, R. Rudrappa vs. Commr., Maddurappa vs. State of Karnataka and G. Maregouda v. Commr. holding that there is no limitation provided by Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, an application can be made at any time, are overruled. Order accordingly.” 29. The Tahsildar rightly rejected the petition on the ground of delay. The reasons assigned by the Tahsildar is within the four corners of law, keeping in view the factors regarding the period of limitation prescribed by law and point No.ii framed for consideration is answered accordingly. For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following order. - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:10860 WP No. 3115 of 2022 ORDER The writ petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- ________________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA YKL/MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5