Unreasonable Delay In Seeking Restoration Of Granted Land Can Be Ground For Denying Relief: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court recently upheld an order of the single judge which dismissed a petition filed by the original grantee of a land who had sought restoration of land to themselves, 12 years after it was first transferred to private persons.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed an appeal filed by M Manjula and others who are heirs of one late Lakshmaiah, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste and came to be granted the land in question in the year 1981.
It said “In light of the above discussion and the position of law that would emerge, in the facts of the case, the restoration of the land cannot be permitted after 12 years.The question of latches would come into play. 12 years having been passed, it would be highly unreasonable, unjust and inequitable, as well as against law to grant any relief to the original grantee-the petitioner-appellant, permitting restoration of the land and to treat the transfer of the land taken place long back to be null and void.”
The land in question was transferred under the two registered Sale Deeds dated March 16,1995 and March 29, 1995 which were executed in favour of private respondent and the land was transferred.
The appellants challenged the transfer and sought restoration by filing an application before the Assistant Commissioner which allowed their application. On appeal the respondents challenged the order before the Deputy Commissioner which allowed it and set aside the order of restoration. While setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the aspect weighed with the Deputy Commissioner was that the land was alienated and transferred in 1995 and that the appellant-petitioner sought restoration thereof in 2007-2008 after lapse of "about more than 11 years which was not a reasonable period, but amounted to inordinate delay". The same came to be challenged in high court.
Findings
The bench noted that under Section 5 of the Act there is no prescription of time limit for resumption or restitution of the land which is null and void under Section 4(1) of the Act. However, a coordinate bench in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka (2020) has held therein that the application made for restitution of the land after delay of 25 years, was not liable to be acceptable in law, as it was after unreasonable delay.
It noted that by virtue of Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) (Amendment) Act, 2023, notified in the Gazette Notification sub-clauses (c) and (d) were inserted, in Section 5. These stated, “(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, there shall be no limitation of time to invoke the provisions of this Act. (d) The provisions of clause (c) shall apply to all cases pending before all the competent authorities and all Courts of Law adjudicating the cases under this section.” The bench was told that the validity of the amendment is challenged in Writ Petition which is pending before the high court's Single Judge bench. The court then said that it is judgment does not travel anything on merit of the said validity proceedings.
The court referred to a coordinate bench's judgment in Smt. Gouramma alias Gangamma vs. Deputy Commissioner, Haveri, wherein the court had held that a court would be "justified in denying the relief of setting aside the transfer and restoring the land to the applicant when he has approached the court after unreasonable delay and his approaching the court is marred by latches".
The bench thereafter said “Though the principles governing overlap, the delay and latches have the facet in equity. Delay is the genus to which the latches and acquiescence are species. The jurisprudential concepts of delay, latches and acquiescence have their own colour and connotation and conceptually often different from crossing the period of limitation prescribed in the statutory provision. Limitation binds the litigant in terms of initiating a legal action or filing any proceedings. Laches concedes an element of culpability in allowing time to pass by in commencing the action in law.”
Dismissing the appeal it said “In light of the above discussion and the position of law that would emerge, in the facts of the case, the restoration of the land cannot be permitted after 12 years.”
Appearance: Advocate Saravana S for the appellants,
Additional Government Advocate for R1 to 3.
Advocate Prakruthi Raju for Advocate Yeshu Babu Ramdutt Mishra for R4 and 5
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar)
Case Title: M Manjula & Others AND Deputy Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2023