KARNATAKA v. HASSAN DISTRICT

1. SMT. CHAYADEVI W/O. LATE EESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

2. SRI KIRAN GOWDA H. E. S/O. LATE EESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

3. SRI VARUNGOWDA H. E. S/O. LATE EESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT HAGARE VILLAGE MADIHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 216 (BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR N., ADVOCATE) AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT B. M. ROAD HASSAN – 573 201

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAKALESHPUR SUB-DIVISION HASSAN DISTRICT SAKALESHPUR – 573 127 Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:52824 WP No. 29246 of 2024

SRI LAKKAIAH S/O. CHIKKA @ CHIKKAIAH AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER R/AT HAGARE VILLAGE MADIHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 216

THE TAHISLDAR BELUR TALUK BELUR – 573 115 HASSAN DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, A.G.A., FOR R-1, 2 AND 4; SRI H. L. V. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2024 PASSED BY R-1 IN CASE NO. PTCL.24/2023-24 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER

1. This is an appeal by the purchaser challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner by which the Deputy Commissioner has ordered for resumption of the land.

2. The case put forth by the grantee was that the land in question was granted on 22.04.1961 and same - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:52824 WP No. 29246 of 2024 has been sold in contravention of the terms of the grant on 12.04.1969. However, it is noticed that this application seeking for resumption was filed only in the year 2012, i.e., 33 years after the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, “the Act”) came into force and after a period of 42 years from the date of the alienation.

3. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the application for resumption on the ground that there was an inordinate delay in invoking the provisions of the Act. But, the Deputy Commissioner has reversed the said order in the light of the amendment made to Section 5 of the Act.

4. Three Division Benches this Court Smt.M.Manjula1, Smt. Gouramma Gangamma2 and Smt. Akkayamma’s3 cases have 1 Smt.M.Manjula Vs. The Deputy Commissioner and Others – 2024:KHC:51015-DB - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:52824 WP No. 29246 of 2024 held that if the proceedings for resumption under the Act are invoked belatedly, that would be a ground to annul the proceedings on the ground of laches.

In this case, the Division Benches have placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the Nekkanti's4 case and have also observed that even the amendment were to be consideration, the concept of laches would still be applicable.

In the instant case, since the proceedings for resumption were invoked in the year 2012, i.e., 33 years after the Act came into force, in my view, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained. 2 Smt. Gouramma Alias Gangamma Vs. The Deputy Commissioner and Others – 2024:KHC-D:10666-DB 3 Smt. Akkayamma Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others - 2024:KHC:48227-DB 4 Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka [(2020) 14 SCC 232], - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:52824 WP No. 29246 of 2024

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1