- 1 - WP No. 106144 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 106144 OF 2014 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: SATTEPPA RAJAPPA BELAVI, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GANESHWADI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H. M. DHARIGOND., ADVOCATE AND SMT. SANGEETA F. KATTIMANI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BAILHONGAL SUB DIVISION BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. THE TAHASHILDAR, GOKAK TALUK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. SANTHRAM SATTEPPA TALAWAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS RANAWWA W/O. LATE SANTHRAM TALAWAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GANESHWADI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. SMT.DUNDAWWA D/O. LATE SANTHRAM TALAWAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GANESHWADI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by VIJAYALAXMI M BHAT Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. Date: 2022.12.13 16:11:44 +0530 - 2 - WP No. 106144 of 2014 6. SRI.HANAMANTH S/O.LATE SANTHRAM TALAWAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GANESHWADI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 7. SRI.KEMPANNA S/O.LATE SANTHRAM TALAWAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GANESHWADI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 8. SMT.PARASAWWA W/O.MALLAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SHIRAHATTI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 9. 9(A) BALAWANTH YAMANAPPA TALAWAR, (SINCE DECEASED BY LRS) SRI.ANAND S/O.LATE BALAWANT TALAWAR, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GANESHWADI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 9(B) SRI. SURESH S/O. BALAWANT TALAWAR, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GANESHWADI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. S. KALASURMATH., HCGP FOR R1-R3) (BY SRI. AKSHAY KATTI, SRI. ANAND ASHTEKAR AND SRI. ABHISHEK PATIL FOR R4 TO R8 AND R9(A)) (R9 DECEASED) (R9(B) SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED NIL.11.2010 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT UNDER ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2014 PASSED BY THE 1st RESPONDNET UNDER ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-L. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - WP No. 106144 of 2014 ORDER The land bearing Sy. No.73/3 measuring 1 acre 15 guntas situated at Ganeshwadi Village Gokak Taluk was granted to the daughter of the respondent No.4 who belongs to Scheduled Caste community under Section 37 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Thereafter the father of the original grantee conveyed the subject land in favor of the petitioner through the registered sale deed dated 24.02.1998 and pursuant to the same, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record in respect of the subject land. 2. An application was filed in the name of original grantee under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prohibition of Transfer of Land Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) for resumption and restoration of the subject land stating that the subject land was conveyed to the petitioner in violation of Section 4(2) of the Act, 1978. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the application and the same was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner against which the present petition is filed. - 4 - WP No. 106144 of 2014 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the application under Section 5 of the Act was filed after an inordinate delay of more than 12 years from the date of first sale. Hence, he submits that the legal representatives of the deceased grantee are not entitled for restoration for not having filed the application within reasonable time. In support he places reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ningappa Vs. Deputy Commissioner and Others reported in (2020) 14 SCC 236 and in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and Another in Civil Appeal No.1390 of 2009. 4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of grantee and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for State submits that the subject land was conveyed to the petitioner in violation of Section 4(2) of the Act, 1978 and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have rightly restored the subject land in favor of the legal representatives of the deceased grantee and the same does not warrant any interference. 5. I have examined the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. - 5 - WP No. 106144 of 2014 6. Admittedly, the land was granted on 25.09.1992 and the same was conveyed to the petitioner by executing the registered sale deed dated 24.02.1998. The deceased grantee filed an application under Section 5 of the Act, 1978 in the year 2010 i.e., after an inordinate delay of more than 12 years without offering plausible explanation. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi -vs- State of Karnataka and another supra has held that the grantees are not entitled for restoration of land if an application for restoration is not filed within a reasonable time from the date of commencement of the PTCL Act. It has been held that Section 5 of the Act neither provides for any period within which an application under the Act has to be made nor prescribes the time within which suo motu action may be initiated. The provisions of the statute even in the absence of any period of limitation must be invoked within reasonable time and the period of delay of more than 10 years in initiation of proceeding has been held to be unreasonable. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ningappa VS. Deputy Commissioner and Others reported in (2020) 14 SCC 236 has held that an application seeking for restoration and - 6 - WP No. 106144 of 2014 resumption filed after an inordinate delay is not maintainable and should have been done within a reasonable period of time and if such applications are filed after considerable delay, it should be rejected on the ground of delay alone. 9. In the instant case, the proceeding has been initiated after a lapse of 12 years which cannot be said to be initiated within the reasonable time. Thus, it is held that the proceeding for restoration of the land in question have not been initiated within a reasonable time. 10. Hence, the application having not being filed within reasonable time, the legal representatives of the deceased grantee are not entitled for the restoration of the subject land. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated Nil.11.2010 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure – K and the order dated 29.05.2014 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure – L are hereby quashed. - 7 - WP No. 106144 of 2014 (iii) Respondent No.3 is hereby directed to restore the entry in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject land forthwith. Sd/- JUDGE PJ/VB