IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.2444/2019 (SC/ST) BETWEEN:
SRI RANGAPPA H SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LRS 1. SRI. THIPPESWAMY S/O LATE RANGAPPA H AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 2. SMT THIPPERAMMA W/O THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT GOPENAHALLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA -577 522 ... APPELLANTS (BY MR. BRIJESH KALAPPA, ADVOCATE A/W MS. CHANDINI S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY M.S. BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR BEEDI K.R.CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA-577501 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB -DIVISION CHITRADURGA-577501 4. SMT. NINGAMMA W/O PUTTARANGAPPA @THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT GOPENAHALLI CHICKMUDNOOR VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADUGA-577 522 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHIR D.NAGARAJ, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) ---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17/01/2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.33141/2017 [SC/ST] PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
2. The appellants are claiming to be the legal representatives of the original allottee. Their predecessor sold the subject land on 3rd March 1975. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ‘the said Act of 1978’) came into force on 1st January 1979. More than 24 years thereafter, on 2nd September 2003, an application was made by the predecessor of the appellants under Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act of 1978. The said application was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner. The order passed thereon was challenged by the fourth respondent in an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner. There was an order of remand in the writ petition filed by the fourth respondent. After the remand, the Deputy Commissioner reconsidered the matter and dismissed the appeal. The fourth respondent filed a writ petition for challenging the said order which has been allowed by the impugned order.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Ram Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka in Civil Appeal No. 1390/2009 dated 26th October 2017 is required to be distinguished considering the nature of the rights of the appellants.
4. The law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Ram Lakshmi (supra) is that an application for restoration under Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act of 1978 must be made within a reasonable time. In the facts of the case, the application was made more than 24 years after the date on which the said Act of 1978 came into force.
5. Irrespective of the merits of the case, the issue is whether the remedy under Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act of 1978 was invoked by the predecessor of the appellants within the reasonable time. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the remedy was invoked within a reasonable time inasmuch as though the said Act of 1978 came into force on 1st January 1979, the application was made on 2nd September 2003. Therefore, a view was taken by the learned Single Judge that as the application for restoration was not made within a reasonable time, the Assistant Commissioner ought not have entertained the same. The view is consistent with the law laid down by the Apex Court. Hence, we find no error in the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE SN