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. 29602 OF 2017 (KLR-LG) BETWEEN: 1 . RAGHURAM S/O CHANNAIAH AGRICULTURIST AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O HUNASEKATTE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 301. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. GOPAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DIVISION 2ND FLOOR, B.M.T.C. BUILDING K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALOLRE-560 027. 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA DISTRICT SHIMOGA-577 201. 3 . A.G.GURURAJARAO S/O GOPALRAO AGED MAJOR 2 4 . R. PRANESHRAO S/O KRISHNARAO AGED MAJOR 5 . SREEKANTAIAH S/O K. SUBBARAO AGED MAJOR 6 . LAKSHMAMMA W/O VENKATAIAH AGED MAJOR PRESENTLY R/AT BANDARAHALLI ROAD NEXT TO MASJID, BANDARAHALLI KAVALAGUNDI POST BHADRAVATHI-577 229. ALL THE ABOVE R3 TO R5 ARE R/O HUNASEKATTE VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; V/O DATED 25/07/2017 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R3 TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE R-1 IN CASE NO. LND/CR/178/2008-09 AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 28.2.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-B, PASSED BY THE 3 KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPEAL NO.42/2011. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.02.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM C.A.V. ORDER Petitioner, a subsequent purchaser of a granted land is assailing the order of respondent No.1/Regional Commissioner, who has cancelled the grant and ordered to restore the land to the Government, which is confirmed by the appellate Tribunal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA. Perused the judgments cited by learned counsel appearing for petitioner. 3. Subject matter of the petition land is an agricultural land bearing Survey No.42/28 measuring 2 4 acres and Survey No.42/29 measuring 2 acres, both situated at Hunasekatte village, Bhadravathi Taluk. It is not in dispute that the petition lands are granted lands. They were granted to one A.G. Gururaja Rao and R. Pranesh Rao vide order dated 31.5.1961. 4. The original grantee sold the lands in favour of one Srikantaiah under registered sale deed dated 9.10.1972. Srikantaiah's name was mutated to the petition lands under M.R. No.1/1972-73. The said Srikantaiah inturn sold to Laxmamma under registered sale deed dated 14.8.1986. Laxmamma's name was accordingly mutated to the petition lands. 5. Laxmamma in turn has sold the petition lands to the petitioner herein under the registered sale deed dated 8.12.1995. Petitioner's name was mutated to the petition land under M.R.No.55/1995-96. Respondent No.1 has proceeded to hold an enquiry by observing that the 5 grantee's sale in 1972 is in contravention of the grant conditions of non-alienation and has proceeded to resume the land and this order is confirmed by the KAT. 6. These impugned orders must be scrutinized in light of the legal principles established by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chhedi Lal Yadav vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Others1. Even assuming that a 15-year non-alienation clause is to be implied, despite the absence of such a condition in the grant order, the key issue before this Court is whether the enquiry initiated by respondent No.1 and the subsequent cancellation of the grant order should be set aside on the grounds of unreasonable delay. In this regard, reference to paragraphs 12 to 14 of the aforementioned judgment is pertinent, and the relevant excerpts are reproduced below: "12. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that power of the Additional Collector for restoration of 1 (2018) 12 SCC 527 6 lands could have been exercised suo motu and since no limitation was prescribed for exercise of such power, the delay in this case may be overlooked. This submission presupposes that where the power can be exercised suo motu, such exercise may be undertaken at any time. The submission is directly contrary to a decision of this Court in Collector v. D. Narsing Rao where this Court affirmed the view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Para '17' of the judgment reads as follows: (D. Narsing Rao case, SCC p. 706, para 17) "17.... that the suo motu revision undertaken after a long lapse of time, even in the absence of any period of limitation was arbitrary and opposed to the concept of rule of law." Thus, we have no hesitation in rejecting this contention. 13. In our view, where no period of limitation is prescribed, the action must be taken, whether suo motu or on the application of the parties, within a reasonable time. Undoubtedly, what is reasonable time would depend on the circumstances of each case and the purpose of the statute. In the case before us, we are clear that the action is grossly delayed and 7 taken beyond reasonable time, particularly, in view of the fact that the land was transferred several times during this period, obviously, in the faith that it is not encumbered by any rights. 14. We are of the view that merely because the legislation is beneficial and no limitation is prescribed, the rights acquired by persons cannot be ignored lightly and proceedings cannot be initiated after unreasonable delay as observed by this Court in Situ Sahu v. State of Jharkhand." 7. Upon a detailed examination of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra, this Court finds that the suo moto powers exercised by respondent No.1/Regional Commissioner to scrutinize the alleged violation of the grant condition have been invoked after an inordinate delay of 37 years from the execution of the first sale deed. The Apex Court has consistently held that actions of this nature must be initiated within a reasonable period, failing which they become arbitrary and unsustainable. In the present case, 8 the authority has not provided any justification for the extraordinary delay in initiating the enquiry. Consequently, the delayed exercise of suo moto power by respondent No.1 is legally untenable, and on this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 8. Furthermore, the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in K. Govindappa vs. State of Karnataka, Revenue Department and Others2 is directly applicable to the present case. The Division Bench categorically held that any action undertaken by the Government while exercising revisional powers must be within a reasonable time. The rationale behind this principle is to uphold legal certainty and to protect the rights of individuals who have acquired property in good faith. In the present case, respondent No.1 has initiated the enquiry after an unjustified lapse of 37 years. Such a belated action not only defeats the very purpose of statutory limitations but also 2 1999(5) KLD 117(DB) 9 results in serious prejudice to bonafide purchasers. Therefore, this Court finds that respondent No.1 was not justified in contemplating an enquiry after such an unreasonable delay, rendering the impugned order legally unsustainable. 9. Another crucial ground on which the impugned order fails to stand scrutiny is the creation of third-party rights over the subject property. The records establish that the petitioner is the third purchaser of the land in question. Before acquiring the property, the petitioner conducted due diligence by verifying public records, which indicated that the land was originally a granted land. However, no conditions were found to be imposed restricting alienation for a period of 15 years. It is noteworthy that the authorities did not take any action when the original grantee transferred the land to one Srikantaiah through a registered sale deed dated 09.10.1972. Subsequently, there were two further transactions, all of which were lawfully 10 registered. Relying on the absence of any alienation restriction in the grant order, the petitioner legitimately believed that his vendor held a clear and marketable title. Acting in good faith, he proceeded to purchase the land by paying a valuable sale consideration. 10. Moreover, the petitioner has significantly invested in the development of the land. Photographs placed on record substantiate that the petitioner initially acquired barren land and, through substantial financial investment, transformed it into a developed property. The petitioner has constructed a farm house and planted numerous fruit-bearing trees, thereby enhancing the value of the land. The sudden initiation of an enquiry after 37 years, without any prior objection from the authorities, severely prejudices the petitioner’s rights and disrupts settled ownership patterns. 11 11. Given these compelling facts, this Court finds that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) has failed to take into account these crucial material aspects while rendering its decision in 2017. Despite the availability of binding judicial precedents, including the ruling in the case of Govindappa (supra), KAT has not adequately examined the reasonableness of the delay in initiating action. The failure of KAT to appreciate these well-settled principles of law amounts to a serious error in its adjudication. 12. Additionally, the rights acquired by the petitioner under validly registered sale deeds cannot be arbitrarily set aside through a quasi-judicial order. Upholding such an order would have far-reaching implications, as it would undermine the confidence of bonafide purchasers who invest in properties based on official records. If such decisions are sustained, it would lead to significant hardships, erode faith in the legal system, and result in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, this Court finds that the 12 order passed by respondent No.1, as well as the confirmation of the same by KAT, suffers from legal perversity and is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. 13. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 19.11.2010 vide Annexure-A passed by respondent No.1 and the order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.42/2011 vide Annexure-B confirming the order of respondent No.1 are hereby set aside. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE *alb/-