IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NO.2939 OF 2018 (SC-ST) BETWEEN:
LAKSHMANA SON OF LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SOMATANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 129.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI M.T. NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI PRABHUGOUDA B. THUMBIGI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT.NARAYANAMMA WIFE OF LATE MUNISWAMAPPA @ APPAIANNA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SOMATANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 129.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PODIUM BLOCK, DR. AMBEDKAR BEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, PODIUM BLOCK, DR. AMBEDKAR BEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE TAHSILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DR. AMBEDKAR BEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SUDHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI T.L. KIRAN KUMAR, AGA FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2018 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.9855 OF 2007 (SC-ST) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19.09.2018, in Writ Petition Nos.9855 of 2007 and connected matters, allowing the writ petitions and setting aside the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 29.05.2007, the first respondent therein has filed the instant appeal.
2. The parties will be referred to as per their rank before the learned Single Judge.
3. The petitioner belongs to Nayaka community which comes under the definition of a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. The father of the writ petitioner was granted the lands in question on 26-1-1965 under various conditions including the condition that the land shall not be alienated for a period of ten years from the date of grant. The lands were alienated on 2-3-1970 in favour of 1st respondent’s husband, within the non- alienation period. During his lifetime, the father of the appellant made an application under Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 for restoration of the lands in question and for cancellation of the sale deed, before the Assistant Commissioner. The 3rd respondent after conducting an enquiry passed an order on 18-7-1985 dismissing the application made by the father of the writ petitioner. The father of the writ petitioner died on 10-6-1991. On 19-2-2005, an appeal was filed by the daughter before the Deputy Commissioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and ordered for restoration by canceling the sale deed. Aggrieved by the same, the daughter of the grantee filed the instant writ petition and by the impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the daughter of the grantee has filed this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the orders of the learned Single Judge as well as the Deputy Commissioner are erroneous. That the learned Single Judge failed to consider the material and evidence on record. That the land requires to be restored in favour of the appellant, since she is the daughter of the original grantee. The same is disputed by the respondents.
5. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
6. Firstly, is the fact that an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner was filed in the year 2005 after a delay of almost 21 years. An application for condonation of delay was also filed. While considering the application for condonation of delay, the Deputy Commissioner held as follows:-
“However, the contentions taken by the counsel for the Respondent that the Appeal is barred by limitation is not applicable to the present case for the mere reason that the order is one sided favouring the respondents and quoting a wrong citation which is not applicable to the present case.”
7. This cannot be accepted. The application for condonation of delay has to be considered on merits on sufficient cause being shown. The Deputy Commissioner held that the order is one sided favouring the respondents, which cannot be considered as application of mind for condonation of delay. Hence, on this ground itself interference is called for.
8. Secondly, during his life time, the original grantee did not question the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was passed on 18-7-1985. Six years thereafter, he passed away. In the said period, he did not challenge the order of the Assistant Commissioner. He died in 1991. Fourteen years after the death and 21 years after the order of the Assistant Commissioner the appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner. There is huge delay in challenging the proceedings. The delay has not been properly explained. When the original grantee himself did not challenge the order of the Assistant Commissioner for a period of 6 years, the daughter cannot be allowed to challenge the same after the death of the father and that too after 14 years from the date of death of the father.
9. Thirdly, in view of the inordinate delay in initiating the proceedings, the learned Single Judge while relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that belated proceedings cannot be entertained. The point on the issue having been answered by the Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge was justified in passing the impugned order. Under these circumstances, we do not find any ground whatsoever to entertain the writ appeal. The order passed by the learned Single Judge while considering the facts are against the grantee. The law is against her. There is no right that could be exercised in her favour. The issue has been covered by the Judgment of the learned Single Judge as referred to above. Hence, we find no good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ/ Rsk/-