IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OFAUGUST, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD REVIEW PETITION No. 288/2019 IN WRIT APPEAL No.766/2019 (SC-ST) BETWEEN:
SRI.THIPPE RUDRAPPA (WRONGLY TYPED AS THLAKINA THIPPESWAMY RUDRAPPA) S/O LATE DURGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT TURUVANUR VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. G.M.THIPPESAMY S/O SMT. BHEEMAKKA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT TURUVANUR CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
4. SRI. THIPPANNA S/O GURAPPA AGE MAJOR RESIDING AT TURUVANUR VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT.
5. SRI. KALLAPPA S/O MUSTURA YELLAPPA AGE MAJOR RESIDING AT TURUVANUR VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK.
... RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.A.No.766/2019 DATED 12/06/2019 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THIS REVIEW PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. Under the judgment and order, which is sought to be reviewed, this Court by placing reliance on the well settled law has held that an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short ‘the Act’) has to be filed within a reasonable time. The alienation had taken place before 1st July, 1979 when the said Act came into force and the application for restoration was filed 21 to 22 years from the date on which the said Act came into force. Therefore, it was held that the application for restoration of possession was not filed within a reasonable time.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon the decision of Apex Court dated 30th April, 2019 in the case of Satyan vs. Deputy Commissioner & Others and submits that apart from the fact that the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the proceedings, the case has to be considered in the light of the objects of the said Act.
4. We find that in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. 2018(1) Karnataka LR 5 (SC), the Apex Court after considering the entire case law on the point has held that an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act has to be filed within a reasonable time. The Apex Court in the case of Satyan (supra) has relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Amrendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati and Others (2004) 10 SCC 65. If paragraph-33 of the said decision in the case of Satyan
(supra) is perused, the Apex Court has not deviated from the well settled position of law that an application has to be filed within a reasonable time. In fact, the observation in paragraph-33 is that in cases where gap of around 20 to 30 years was involved, the view that the application is not filed within the reasonable time has been taken. In the facts of the case, the Apex Court held that delay of 8 years cannot be said to be unreasonable. In the present case, the time gap is of about 21 to 22 years.
5. Hence, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Even otherwise, there is no ground for review.
6. Accordingly, the review petition is rejected.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Srl.