1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 13759 OF 2024 (LR) BETWEEN: K. VIJAYAN SINCE DECEASED BY LRs 1. V. GEETHA W/O LATE K. VIJAYAN AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS AGRICULTURIST 2. DEEPIKA .V D/O LATE K. VIJAYAN AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS AGRICULTURIST 3. NAVEETH .V D/O LATE K. VIJAYAN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS AGRICULTURIST PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT SEETHAMMA COMPOUND PARAMANNA LAYOUT, NELAMANGALA-562123. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. H. KANTHARAJ, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R 2 SRI. H.K. RAVI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 27.03.2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN REV. APPEAL NO. 1099/2006 (CH-I) VIDE ANNEXURE-A ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 13.01.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM C.A.V. ORDER In the captioned petition, petitioner is assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 27.3.2024, dismissing 3 the appeal filed in Rev. Appeal No.1099/2006 on the ground of limitation. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: Husband of Petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners 2 and 3 namely K. Vijayan purchased the petition land under the sale deed 22.2.1996. Respondent No.1/Assistant Commissioner initiated proceedings under Section 79(A) and (B) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,1961 (for short "KLR Act, 1961") and by order dated 19.9.2006 declared the sale deed obtained by the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners 2 and 3 as void in terms of provisions of Section 79(A) and 79(B) of the KLR Act, 1961. 3. Assailing the order of respondent No.1, petitioners' father preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) in Rev.Appeal No.1099/2006, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 23.9.2011. After demise of K. Vijayan, the petitioners filed 4 Rev.Misc.Petition No.39/2018 seeking restoration of appeal in Rev.Appeal No.1099/2006 along with an application for condonation of delay. The KAT vide order dated 10.7.2019 dismissed the Rev.Misc.No.39/2018. Assailing the order passed in revision petition, petitioners approached this Court in W.P.10385/2021. The Co-Ordinate Bench while allowing the said petition observed at Paragraph 6 as under: "6. In the present case, the petitioners are specific that they have a good case on merits as against the declaration of the sale deed dated 22.02.1996 void and also for condonation of delay. They assert that Sri. K. Vijayan was suffering from serious ailment for a long time before his demise, and this assertion is not disputed on behalf of the authorities. The petitioners' failure to take action in time for restoration of the appeal after his demise must be considered in these circumstances as also the constraints pleaded by them because of their station in life. In the facts and circumstances, and on perusal of the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal should have examined the question of delay in the light facts peculiar to the petitioners and the proposition relied upon by the learned counsel inasmuch as this proposition is also a part of declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Esha 5 Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Director of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy', reported in [(2013) 12 SCC 649]. Therefore the following: ORDER [a] The writ petition is allowed in part, and the impugned order dated 10.07.2019 in Revision Misc. No.39/2018 [Annexure-A] on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, is quashed. [b] The proceedings in Revision Misc. No.39/2018 are restored for consideration on merits in the light of the aforesaid proposition enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Director of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy' with liberty to the petitioners to file additional affidavit, and [c] The petitioners shall appear before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal without further notice on 9.8.2021." 4. Petitioners filed an application for restoration of Rev. Appeal No.1099/2006 before the KAT along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 6 years and 9 months. After issuing notice to the respondents, the KAT dismissed the appeal citing the reason of inordinate delay 6 without considering the merits of the matter. Challenging this dismissal, petitioners' filed W.P No.10385/2021 wherein this Court vide order dt.19.07.2021 allowed the petition and directed for Rev.Appeal No.1099/2006 to be restored on file adopting the lenient approach in regard to delay, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee .vs. Managing Director of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy1. 5. Pursuant to the liberty granted in the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, petitioners filed additional affidavit before the KAT in Rev.Misc.No.39/2018 and sought to restore the appeal in Rev.Appeal No.1099/2006, which came to be allowed vide order dated 9.12.2021 and the appeal in Rev.Appeal No.1099/2006 was restored on its file by the KAT. Thereafter, the KAT vide order dated 27.3.2024 answering Point No.1 formulated by it in the negative held that no 1 [(2013) 12 SCC 649] 7 grounds are made out for condoning the delay and accordingly, proceeded to dismiss the petition. In the captioned petition, petitioners are assailing the order of the KAT. 6. Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned AGA. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the judgment cited by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. 7. The following points would arise for consideration: "(i) Whether KAT erred in rejecting the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act? (ii) Whether the finding of the KAT that in view of omission of 79(A) and (B) of the Act as per Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 2020, the proceedings pending before KAT in REV. APPEAL 8 NO. 1099/2006 stand abated is palpably erroneous having restored the revision appeal 1099/2006 on file pursuant to the order passed in Misc. Petn.No.39/2018 vide order dated 9.12.2021?" FINDING ON POINT No.1 8. The petitioners are asserting their title to the subject property based on a registered sale deed dated 22.02.1996, which was executed for valuable sale consideration. They have challenged the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, who nullified the said sale deed by invoking the provisions of Section 79(A) and 79(B) of the KLR Act, 1961. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the KAT. However, there was a delay in filing the appeal, and consequently, the petitioners also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the delay. 9. While considering the petition for condonation of delay, the KAT ought to have taken a more lenient and 9 pragmatic approach, particularly since the case pertains to rights in immovable property. It is well established that disputes concerning ownership and title over immovable properties must be adjudicated on their merits rather than being dismissed on mere technicalities, such as procedural delays. The law of limitation, though important in adversarial litigation, cannot be applied in a rigid and mechanical manner, particularly in cases where an individual’s vested property rights are at stake. In purely adversarial proceedings, the courts and tribunals are required to strike a balance between the rights of both parties while considering inordinate delays, as such delays may confer an advantage upon the opposing party. However, in the present case, the dispute is not a private adversarial litigation but rather one in which the State is exercising its statutory power to forfeit land under the provisions of the then-existing Section 79(A) and 79(B) of the KLR Act, 1961. 10 10. Given that the State seeks to forfeit the petitioners' land by invoking statutory provisions, it becomes imperative to ensure that procedural technicalities do not override substantive justice. The rigid application of the law of limitation in such cases would lead to an unjust deprivation of property rights, thereby causing irreparable harm to the affected citizens. If the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, the State will not suffer any serious prejudice, as it will still have the opportunity to contest the appeal on its merits. However, if the delay is not condoned, the petitioners will suffer an irreparable loss by being deprived of their property without an opportunity to contest the findings of the Assistant Commissioner. Such an approach would result in a miscarriage of justice, as it would effectively extinguish valuable property rights on the basis of a mere procedural lapse. 11. In view of the foregoing considerations, this Court finds it appropriate to adopt a liberal approach and 11 condone the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the finding on Point No.1 is reversed, and the question raised before this Court is answered in the affirmative. FINDING ON POINT No.2 12. This Court is called upon to determine whether the proceedings initiated by Assistant Commissioner under Section 79(A) and (B) of the KLR Act, 1961 stand abated following the restoration of the appeal by the KAT. Before this Court delves into the case on hand, it would be relevant to cull out the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, (for short "Ordinance") which came into force w.e.f. 13.7.2020. This Ordinance was later incorporated as Amendment Act 56 of 2020. Section 2 of the Ordinance reads as under: "(2) Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 shall be deemed to have been come into force with effect from the 1st day of March 1974 and remaining provisions shall come into force at once." 12 13. Section 13 of the 2020 Ordinance has a direct bearing on the case on hand. Therefore, same is extracted, which reads as under: "13. Savings.- (1) Notwithstanding the omission of sections 79A, 79B and 79C with effect from 1st day of March 1974, the case already disposed of before the publication of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Ammendment) Ordinance, 2020 shall not in any way be affected. (2) All cases pending on the date of publication of this Act pertaining to sections 79A, 79B and 79C and consequential thereof shall stand abated." Section 13 of the Ordinance 2020 was incorporated as Section 12 of the Amendment Act 56 of 2020.Therefore, the same is extracted, which reads as under: " 12. Savings.- (1) Notwithstanding the omission of sections 79A, 79B and 79C with effect from 1stday of March, 1974, all cases finally disposed off before the promulgation of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (Karnataka Ordinance 13 of 2020) shall remain unaffected by the said Ordinance. (2) All cases pending before any Court, tribunal or other authority competent under the provisions of the Principal Act on the date of promulgation of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 13 (Karnataka Ordinance 13 of 2020) pertaining to sections 79A, 79B and 79C shall hereby stand abated. " 14. The effect of Ordinance on the present proceedings needs consideration. Section 13(2) of the Ordinance/Section 12(2) of Amendment Act 56 of 2020 clearly contemplates that all cases pending on the date of publication of this Act pertaining to Sections 79A, 79B and 79C and consequential thereof shall stand abated. 15. To ascertain whether the case on hand falls under Section 13(1) or 13(2) of the Ordinance, the restoration of the appeal pursuant to order passed in Rev.Misc.No.39/2018 would gain significance in the case on hand. The appellate Tribunal pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.10385/2021 evidenced at Annexure-K has allowed the Revision Misc. No.39/2018 and the appeal dismissed for default is restored on file. 14 16. The appellate Tribunal had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution on 23.9.2011. Therefore, the present issue revolves around inter play of Ordinance 2020 and the procedural law and principles concerning restoration of proceedings. Specifically, this Court is required to examine whether restoration of appeal which was dismissed for non- prosecution renders the proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 79A and 79B as abated. The appeal dismissed for default in 2011 was restored by the Appellate Tribunal. The restoration effectively re-establishes the pendency of appeal from the date of its original filing. This has three significant implications: (i) In the light of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court, the restoration of appeal by the appellate Tribunal clearly leads to presumption of pendency of appeal No. 1099/2006 questioning the validity of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 79A & 79B. The 15 restoration of the appeal relates back to original date of its filing thereby reinstating its pending status before its dismissal in 2011. Therefore, Section 13(2) of the Ordinance would be applicable to the case on hand thereby abating the proceedings initiated by Assistant Commissioner under Section 79A and 79B. (ii) With the restored appeal now deemed pending, the appellate Tribunal has virtually misinterpreted Section 13 of the Ordinance 2020 amendment and therefore, the order of the appellate Tribunal that in view of omission of Section 79A and B as per second amendment of 2020 it has to be presumed that no case was pending before the Tribunal on the date of promulgation of 2020 Ordinance is perverse and runs contrary to Sub-clause(2) of Section 13 of 2020 Ordinance is now incorporated as Section 12 of 56 amendment Act. 16 (iii) This Court, while addressing Point No.1, has already condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT). Consequently, the appeal pending before the KAT is deemed to be validly instituted and subsisting for all practical and legal purposes. In light of this, any proceedings initiated by Respondent No.1/Assistant Commissioner, as well as the subsequent impugned order passed therein, do not receive the protection of Section 12(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2020 (Act 56 of 2020). The legislative intent behind Section 12(1) is to safeguard cases that attained finality prior to the amendment; however, in the present matter, given that the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned, the appeal is deemed pending as per the legal framework. Accordingly, the petitioner's case remains under adjudication, and the impugned order stands abated by the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Amendment Act. 17 17. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) Proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner in LRF(1)99/2001-02 dated 19.09.2006 stands abated in terms of Section 12(2) of the Amendment Act 56 of 2020. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE *alb/-