Doctrine Of Unreasonable Delay Applies To Proceedings Under Karnataka SC/ST Prevention Of Land Transfer Act: High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that initiation of proceedings under Section 5 of Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, for resumption of land by the original grantee, after lapse of 7 years and after third party interest has been created, is hit by doctrine of unreasonable delay and thus not maintainable.A division bench of Justice...
The Karnataka High Court has held that initiation of proceedings under Section 5 of Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, for resumption of land by the original grantee, after lapse of 7 years and after third party interest has been created, is hit by doctrine of unreasonable delay and thus not maintainable.
A division bench of Justice S G Pandit and Justice Vijaylkumar A Patil dismissed the petition filed by one Errapa who had challenged the order of the single judge bench which had set aside the order of the deputy commissioner which held that the sale transaction between the parties (Erappa and Suresh Lakhotia) is in violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act.
The appellant contended that the Single Judge has committed error in setting aside the orders passed by the Commissioner on the ground that there is delay in initiation of proceedings. Further, the Single Judge ought to have considered the fact that the respondent no.3 (Suresh) had played fraud on the grantee and got the sale deed executed in the guise of mortgage deed.
The bench noted that the subject land was alienated/sold by the appellant-grantee in 2005 but he initiated proceedings for resumption of land after lapse of 7 years. The land in question is utilised for the purpose of industrial activities and the factory building has been constructed on the land in question, it noted.
Following which it held,
“When things stood thus, the initiation of proceedings by the grantee after a period of 7 years is an afterthought, that too after receiving the entire sale consideration from the respondent No. 3. The initiation of proceedings under Section 5 before the Assistant Commissioner is hit by doctrine of unreasonable delay.”
Rejecting the contention of the purchaser having played fraud the bench said “The appellant grantee cannot make bald assertion of fraud without there being any proper pleading supported with acceptable evidence. Mere reliance on some unregistered mortgage deed contending that fraud has been played on the grantee cannot be accepted. Moreover, the appellant/grantee with open eyes has executed registered Sale Deed, when the appellant has executed registered sale deed it is not open for him to contend that, in the guise of mortgage deed, sale deed, was got executed.”
Placing reliance on the Supreme Court jugdment in the case of Nekkanti Rama Laxmi Vs. State of Karnataka and another, (2020) 14 SCC 232, wherein the court has held that the application for restoration and resumption of land should be filed within a reasonable time, the bench said “In the instant case the appellant grantee has filed an application for restoration and resumption after a period of 7 years, the said time cannot be termed as reasonable period.”
Accordingly it dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Erappa And Assistant Commissioner & Others
Case no: WRIT APPEAL NO. 100265 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 244
Date of Order: 23-06-2023
Appearance: Advocate Mrutyunjay S Hallikeri for Appellant.
Advocate Anand R Kolli for R3.
Advocate V. S. Kalasurmath for R1, R2.