SRI. ASHOK v. AMBIKA H B

4. SRI N VENKATA REDDY S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT AARIKUNTE VILLAGE RONURU HOBLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135

5. SMT. RAHTNAMMA W/O SRI RAMAPPA ALIS SRIRAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

6. SRI CHIKAKVENKATAPPA S/O LATE MUNIVENKATA BOVI AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

7. SRI VENKATARAMAPPA S/O LATE MUNIVENKATA BOVI AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

8. SRI AKKAMMA W/O SRIYELLAPPA D/O LATE MUNIVENKATA BOVI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

9. SRI VENKATARAYAPPA S/O LATE MUNIVENKATA BOVI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 9 ARE R/AT J V COLONY VILLAGE J THIMMASADNRA POST KASABA HOBLI SRINIVAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135 …RESPONDENTS (SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 9 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:51015-DB WA No. 1485 of 2023 ORDER DATED 07/11/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.993/2022 AND DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION BY RESTORING THE LAND TO ITS ORIGINAL GRANTEE/ APPELLANT HEREIN. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned Advocate Mr. N.V. Prabhakaraiah for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate Mrs. Niloufer Akbar for respondent Nos.1 to 3. The rest of the respondents are served, but have not chosen to appear.

2. The appellant is original respondent No.4, who has filed this appeal seeking to challenge judgment and order dated 07.11.2022 of learned Single Judge, whereby the petition filed by the original petitioner-respondent No.4 herein came to be allowed. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:51015-DB WA No. 1485 of 2023

2.1 Learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 17.06.2019 of respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, which confirmed the

19.01.2017 respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner. Thereby, the authorities had allowed application of original respondent No.4 for restoration of land filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in favour of the applicant. The original petitioner challenged the same in the writ petition which came to be allowed, and the orders were set aside.

3. The land bearing Survey No.8/P25 (old survey No.8) admeasuring 3 acres situated at Ramapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluka in Kolar District was granted to one Munivenkata Bhovi in the year 1971-1972. The land changed hands which ultimately came to be purchased by the petitioner on

20.01.1997. Thereafter, respondent No.4-representative of the grantee initiated the proceedings under Section 4 of aforementioned Act in the year 2014-2015 for restoration of the land on the ground that Section 4 of the Act was breached in the alienation of land. The authorities annulled the sale - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:51015-DB WA No. 1485 of 2023 transactions and directed resumption of the land to the original grantee.

3.1 In setting aside the orders passed by the authorities, allowing resumption of land by the grantee and thereby allowing the petition of the petitioner, learned Single Judge took the view on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka [(2020) 14 SCC 232], that the application for restoration was filed after atleast lapse of 17 years from the date of second sale and as such after 20 years from the date of original grant which was inordinate delay, therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, the restoration could not have been allowed.

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 - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:51015-DB WA No. 1485 of 2023 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. Resumption and restitution of granted lands- (1) Where, on 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 Sub-section (1) of Section 4, he may,- (a) by order take possession of such land after evicting all persons in possession thereof in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that no such order shall be made except after giving the person - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:51015-DB WA No. 1485 of 2023 affected a reasonable opportunity of being heard; (b) restore such land to the original grantee or his legal heir. Where it is not reasonably practicable to restore the land to such grantee or legal heir; such land shall be deemed to have vested in the Government encumbrances. The Government may grant such land to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in accordance with the rules relating to grant of land. (1-A) After an enquiry referred to in Sub-section (1) the Assistant Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that transfer of any granted land is not null and void pass an order accordingly. the orders of the Deputy (2) Subject Commissioner under Section 5-А, any order passed under sub-sections (1) and (1-A) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law and no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of any proceeding taken or about to be taken by the Assistant Commissioner in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. (3) For the purposes of this Section, where any granted land is in the possession of a person, other then the original grantee or his legal heir, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that such person has acquired the land by a transfer which provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 4." is null and void under - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:51015-DB WA No. 1485 of 2023

4.3 It would be noticed from the aforesaid provision that there is no prescription of time limit for resumption or restitution of the land which is null and void under Section 4(1) of the Act. However, various judicial decisions, prominent amongst is Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra), which was in the very context of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. It was held therein that the application made for restitution of the land after delay of 25 years, was not liable to be acceptable in law, as it was after unreasonable delay. It was held that there was no annulment of transfer could be allowed.

4.3.1 It was observed and held in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra), “However, the question that arises is with regard to terms of Section 5 of the Act which enables any to make an interested person 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 & Ors. vs. Hari Kishore Yadav & Ors., [2017 (6) Scale 459] and also in the case of Ningappa vs. Deputy Commissioner & Ors. [C.A. No. 3131 of 2007, decided on 14.07.2011] 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 - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:51015-DB WA No. 1485 of 2023 suo motu, must be taken within a reasonable time.’’ (para 8)

4.3.2 It was further stated, the present application “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 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. Deputy Commissioner, 2000 (1) Karnataka Law Journal, 303 and G. Maregouda vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga and Ors, 2000(2) Kr. L.J.Sh. N.4B 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. ……”

4.4 While the aforesaid law that relief of setting aside of transfer could not be granted after unreasonably long period and the applications made under Section 5 for restitution or resumption of the land by a person could not be acted upon in favour of such person on the ground of delay, the legislature intervened to proceed to amend Section 5 by virtue of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) (Amendment) Act, 2023, notified in the Gazette Notification - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:51015-DB WA No. 1485 of 2023 dated 27.07.2023. Thereby sub-clauses (c) and (d) were inserted, namely, “(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, there shall be no limitation of time to invoke the provisions of this Act. (d) The provisions of clause (c) shall apply to the competent all cases pending before all authorities and all Courts of Law adjudicating the cases under this section.”

4.5 It was stated at the bar that the validity of the aforesaid amendment is challenged in Writ Petition No.27496 of 2023 which is pending before the learned Single Judge of this Court. This judgment does not touch anything on merits of the said validity proceedings, and it is clarified that the said proceedings before learned Single Judge shall be decided on their own merits.

4.6 However, the aspects which emerged in light of the law laid in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra), vis-à-vis amendment in Section 5 and the situation obtained, came to be dealt with by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Dharwad in Smt. Gouramma alias Gangamma vs. Deputy Commissioner, Haveri, which was Writ Appeal No.100101 of 2024 decided on

29.07.2024. - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:51015-DB WA No. 1485 of 2023

4.6.1 After noticing the amendment in Section 5, the Division Bench observed thus, in para 3(d), "The Amendment Act is made applicable with retrospective effect is only a duplication of the existing legal position. Such duplication happened even in English legislative history, hardly needs to be mentioned. The question of delay is a matter of limitation which this statute is silent about. Clauses (c) and (d), now introduced to Section 5(1) of the Act, do not bring any change in the statutory scheme. At the most, they are declaratory of what the statute has been all through, so far as the limitation period is concerned. Nobody disputes that there was no limitation period earlier and there is no limitation period now too. Laches, which would involve a host of factors, pertains to the Domain of Equity."

4.6.2 It was observed that in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra), did not speak of limitation period, but focused on the long lapse of time in making the application for restitution of the land, by quoting paragraph 8 above from the said decision, the Division Bench then held as per para 3(f), "It may be true, that the legislative debates might have taken place about the observations of the Apex Court in Nekkanti and other such cases while passing the Amendment Bill. That per se does not lend credence to the contention that the said amendment intends to invalidate the law declared by the highest court of the country which - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC:51015-DB WA No. 1485 of 2023 intended to silence it did after considering all aspects of the matter including the sense of equity & justice. If the Legislature the voice of Nekkanti, it would have employed a different terminology. We repeat that, ordinarily, delay is decided by computing the period of limitation prescribed by law, whereas "laches" is decided keeping in view a host of factors. Cases are repleat in Law Reports relating to delay and laches in writ jurisdiction under Articles 12, 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. This is only to illustrate."

4.7 From the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. N. Murugesan [(2022) 2 SCC 25], the Division Bench highlighted the nice distinction between ‘delay and laches’, as against ‘limitation’. It was observed that the ‘limitation’ is a prescription of time for taking an action as contemplated by the legislature, whereas the concept of ‘delay and laches’ has a different connotation to operate.

4.8 The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Gouramma (supra), proceeded on the above reasoning to clarify that the issues were examined without touching the aspects of validity of amendment which is pending adjudication. It was held in Smt. Gouramma (supra) that on the ground of laches, the court would be justified in denying the relief of setting aside the transfer and - 13 - NC: 2024:KHC:51015-DB WA No. 1485 of 2023 restoring the land to the applicant when he has approached the court after unreasonable delay and his approaching the court is marred by laches.

5. The Supreme Court in N. Murugesan (supra), explained the word ‘laches’ thus, language meaning "The word "laches" is derived from the “remissness and French 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." (para 21)

5.1 The Supreme Court proceeded to observe that the remedy for which the party knocks the doors of the Court may not be provided to him on equitable grounds when such party is guilty of indolence and his action suffers from laches, "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 - 14 - NC: 2024:KHC:51015-DB WA No. 1485 of 2023 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." (para 22)

5.2 Though the principles governing overlap, the delay and laches has the facet in equity. Delay is the genus to which the laches and acquiescence are species. The jurisprudential concepts of delay, laches and acquiescence have their own colour and connotation and conceptually often different from crossing the period of limitation prescribed in the statutory provision. Limitation binds the litigant in terms of initiating a legal action or filing any proceedings. Laches concedes an element of culpability in allowing time to pass by in commencing the action in law.

6. In view of the aforesaid reasons and discussions, the challenge to the impugned judgment and order of learned Single Judge is devoid of merit. No ground raised in the memo of appeal would hold good in law. Learned Single Judge was eminently justified in setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner confirming the order of Assistant Commissioner and thereby allowing the petition of the purchaser. - 15 - NC: 2024:KHC:51015-DB WA No. 1485 of 2023

7. The appeal is meritless and the same is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal, interlocutory applications, as may be pending, would not survive and they stand accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE AHB