- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL No.352 OF 2023 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: 1 . SMT. SUSHEELAMMA @ SUSHEELA, D/O. LATE SHARADAMMA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, C/O. DIVYA STORES, 12TH B MAIN, BANGALORE-560 010. PRESENTLY R/AT No. 24, D BLOCK, NGO 'S' QUARTERS, 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. 2 . SRI. SRINIVASA, S/O. LATE SHARADAMMA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, No. 1087, 66TH CROSS, 8TH B MAIN ROAD, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010, PRESENTLY R/AT No. 24, 'D' BLOCK, NGO 'S' QUARTERS, 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI GANGI REDDY B. V., ADVOCATE) - 2 - AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, BANGALORE-560 001. 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560 001. 3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION, PODIUM BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 001. 4 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 5 . SRI. KOTHANUR M. THAMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, S/O. LATE MINISHAMAPPA, R/AT BAGALUR VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK, BANGALORE-562 157. 6 . SRI. R. DEVENDRA S/O. A. RAJANNA, R/AT VEERABHADRANAPALYA, DODDABALLAPUR TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. 7 . SRI. R. CHANDRANNA S/O. A. RAJANNA, R/AT VEERABHADRANAPALYA, DODDABALLAPUR TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. - 3 - 8 . SRI. R. CHETAN KUMAR S/O. A. RAJANNA, R/AT VEERABHADRANAPALYA, DODDABALLAPUR TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. 9 . SMT. SHARADAMMA @ SHOBHA D/O. A. RAJANNA, No. 222, 1ST CROSS, MANJUNATHA LAYOUT, NAGASHETTIHALLI, BANGALORE-560 094. 10 . SMT. KALYANAKUMARI, W/O. SRI. SUDHAKAR, KANTEERAVANAGAR, DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 057. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI R. PURUSHOTHAMA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.V. CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI K. SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI V.F. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R8; SRI RAJANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R9 & R10) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 13/02/2023 MADE IN WP 1776/2012 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND GRANT THE APPELLANTS ALL THE RELIEFS WHICH THEY HAVE PRAYED FOR IN THE CASE No.SCST(A) 131/2010-11 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS INCLUDING A DIRECTION TO THE CONTESTING RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE APPELLANTS THE COST OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER: - 4 - CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND C.A.V. JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard learned advocate Mr. B.V. Gangi Reddy for the appellants, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent Nos.1 to 3, learned advocate Mr. P. Purushothama for learned advocate Mr. P.V. Chandra Shekar for respondent No.4, learned advocate Mr. K. Shivashankar for respondent No.5, learned advocate Mr. V.F. Kumbar for respondent Nos.6 to 8 and learned advocate Mr. Rajanna for respondent Nos.9 and 10. 2. This intra Court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is directed against the order in Writ Petition No.1776 of 2012 dated 13.02.2023. 3. The appellants, being the legal heirs of the original grantee, sought resumption of the land, which request was initially rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. However, in appeal, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the resumption. This order was challenged - 5 - in a writ petition. The Learned Single Judge, upon consideration, set aside the order of resumption. 4. The facts leading to this appeal are that, the land bearing Old Survey No.74 (New Survey No.34) measuring 4 Acres situated at Bandikodigehalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluka and land in Old Survey No.177 (New Survey No.451 measuring 2 Acres situated at Bagalur Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluka were granted in favour of Anjaneyappa. The said Anjaneyappa executed a registered sale deed on 03.12.1969 in favour of the late Munishamappa, the petitioner's father. The legal heirs of the original grantee i.e., Sri. A. Rajanna and his children filed an application for resumption of land under Section 5 of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. The said proceedings came to be allowed by directing the resumption. The Deputy Commissioner entertained the appeal filed by the petitioner and ordered remand dated 08.12.2006 to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. 5. The Assistant Commissioner on remand dismissed the application. The original grantee has two children, namely, Smt. Sharadamma and Sri. A. Rajanna. The appellants - 6 - claiming right through her mother Sharadamma filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner in appeal No.SC.ST(A)131/2010-11. Sri. A. Rajanna and his sons filed appeal in Appeal No.SC.ST(A)129/2010-11. The Deputy Commissioner by common order dated 07.01.2012 allowed the appeal and ordered cancellation of the sale deed and the restoration of the land in question. However, as the land was already acquired by KIADB, the compensation was directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the original grantee. 6. This order was challenged in writ petition by the legal heirs of the purchaser i.e., the original writ petitioner. Learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 13.02.2023 set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and directed KIADB to release compensation in favour of the petitioners therein. The present appeal is by the grandchildren of the original grantee, Sri. Anjaneyappa claiming right through Smt. Sharadamma, the original grantee. 7. Sri. B.V. Gangi Reddy, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the writ petition was not maintainable. It is submitted that the resumption order was passed by common order while dealing two appeals. The Deputy Commission has passed - 7 - common order in Appeal No.SC.ST(A)129/2010-11 and Appeal No.SC.ST(A)131/2010-11. Both appeals were filed claiming independent right, title and interest in the property in question. The writ petition was filed to challenge the order passed in Appeal No.SC.ST(A)129/2010-11 and the order of learned Single Judge has set aside the order in this appeal. Whereas the order in Appeal No.SC.ST(A)131/2010-11 was never under challenge and the order of resumption to that extent at the instance of the appellants, remains unchallenged. It is submitted that, in that view, the order in appeal at the instance of the appellants has reached finality and the order of restitution remains. 8. Learned advocate further submits that in view of the land in question is already acquired by the KIADB, the compensation is paid to the appellants. The direction by the learned Single Judge to pay compensation to the purchaser/writ petitioner is incorrect. 9. Learned advocate further submits that the delay and laches in filing the application under Section 4 read with Section 5 of the Act of 1978 was never raised before the authorities by the purchaser. Hence, the said ground is not permissible to be agitated in the writ petition. The order of the learned Single Judge on the grounds of delay and laches is not sustainable. - 8 - 10. Learned advocate further submits that there was no opportunity to explain the delay before setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner by the learned Single Judge. Learned advocate has further reiterated the grounds urged before the learned Single Judge on the scheme of grant and non-applicability of the limitation. 11. Learned advocate for the appellants further submits that when the order of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged in part, setting aside the entire order by the learned Single Judge is in excess of the prayer made in the writ petition. To that extent, the order of the learned Single Judge is unsustainable. 12. Smt. Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that in view of the amendment to the Act of 1978, the limitation for application for resumption of land is not applicable. 13. Sri. P. Purushothama, learned advocate appears on behalf of Sri. P.V. Chandra Shekar, learned advocate for respondent No.4 - KIADB. Sri. K. Shivashankar, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.5. - 9 - 14. The legal heir of the purchaser submits that the order of the learned Single Judge in rejecting the application for restitution is as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2018 (1) KAR L.R. 5 (SC) as the order of the learned Single Judge is in conformity with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned advocate has to dismiss the appeal. 15. Learned advocate Mr. V.F. Kumbar appears for respondent Nos.6 to 8 and Sri. Rajanna, learned advocate appearing for respondent Nos.9 and 10 reiterates the submissions of the learned advocate for the appellants. 16. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the land in question was granted in favour of Sri. Anjaneyappa in 1954, who subsequently transferred it to Munishamappa by way of sale on 03.12.1969. An application for resumption and cancellation of the sale was filed under the relevant provisions of the Act on 14.06.2004. The application was initially entertained, and an order of resumption was passed. The purchaser, Munishamappa, filed an appeal, whereupon the Deputy Commissioner remanded the matter to the - 10 - Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants sought impleadment in the proceedings, which was granted pursuant to the directions in the writ petition. On remand, however, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the resumption application. 17. Against the order of rejection, two appeals were preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, one by the appellants and second by Sri. A. Rajanna and his children, who are respondents Nos. 6 to 10. The Deputy Commissioner passed common order, as both appeals arose from the order dated 12.11.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 18. The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 07.01.2012. It is pertinent to note that the prayer sought to quash the order passed in Appeal No.SC.ST(A)129/2010-11 dated 07.01.2012, while the appellants in both appeals were arrayed as respondents in the writ petition. Although the prayer did not specifically include the Appeal No.SC.ST(A)131/2010-2011, it cannot be construed that there was no challenge to the latter appeal. Additionally, the appellants were named as respondents in the writ petition and actively participated in the proceedings. Added to that, no such ground was raised in the writ petition. - 11 - 19. The learned Single Judge has examined the maintainability of the application in both appeals. The objection raised regarding the non-inclusion of the other appeal number is merely a hyper- technical issue, which must be treated as a typographical error. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge deals both appeals and binds all the parties. 20. In so far as maintainability of application for resumption of land, it is no longer res integra, in view of the series of orders passed by this Court regarding the time frame within which applications under Sections 4 and 5 of the 1978 Act may be entertained for the restoration and restitution of land. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court have been duly considered in Writ Appeal No. 210 of 2023 dated 25.11.2024. In the aforesaid judgment, reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra). Further, reference is made to the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Gouramma alias Gangamma vs. Deputy Commissioner, Haveri in Writ Appeal No. 100101 of 2024, decided on 29.07.2024. The judgment also refers to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India vs. N. Murugesan [(2022) 2 SCC 25]. - 12 - 21. This Bench, after a detailed analysis of the aforementioned judgments and the provisions of the 1978 Act, has examined the distinction between 'delay and laches' and 'limitation'. It is held that 'limitation' refers to the time prescribed by the legislature within which an action must be taken, while the concepts of 'delay and laches' operate differently. It is further held that the principles governing delay and laches overlap, but delay and laches also have an equitable aspect. Delay serves as the genus, while laches and acquiescence are its species. The jurisprudential concepts of delay, laches, and acquiescence carry their own meanings and connotations, often differing from the mere expiration of the time period prescribed by the statutory limitation. Limitation governs the initiation of legal action or the filing of proceedings, whereas laches involves an element of culpability in allowing time to pass without commencing legal action. 22. In the present case, the grant was made in 1954, and the sale occurred in 1969. The application for resumption was filed in 2004, 35 years after the execution of the registered sale deed and 25 years from the 1978 Act coming into force. - 13 - 23. In view of the factual circumstances and the legal position stated above, the restoration of land cannot be permitted after a period of 25 years. The issue of laches is relevant in this context. It would be highly unreasonable, unjust and inequitable as well as contrary to the law, to grant any relief to the original grantee by allowing the restitution of land after such a prolonged delay. After the lapse of such a long period, it is not permissible to declare the transfer of land as null and void. 24. For the reasons mentioned above, no error is discernible in the order passed by the learned Single Judge that would justify interference by this Court. Consequently, the appeal is hereby dismissed. In view of dismissal of main appeal, pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of as not surviving. Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE VBS