The Karnataka High Court upheld a single judge’s order dismissing a petition by original land grantees seeking restoration of property, 12 years after its initial transfer to private individuals.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice KV Aravind rejected an appeal by M Manjula and others, heirs of late Lakshmaiah, a Scheduled Caste member who received the land grant in 1981.
The court stated, “…The restoration of the land cannot be permitted after 12 years. The question of latches would come into play; 12 years having passed, it would be unreasonable, unjust, and inequitable, as well as against the 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 property was transferred through two registered sale deeds dated March 16, 1995, and March 29, 1995, to private respondents. The appellants contested the transfer, initially succeeding before the Assistant Commissioner.
However, the Deputy Commissioner overturned this decision, citing the 11-year gap between the 1995 transfer and the 2007-2008 restoration request as unreasonable. This matter was subsequently brought to the high court.
The bench acknowledged that Section 5 of the Act lacks time restrictions for land resumption. However, a previous ruling in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs State of Karnataka (2020) rejected a 25-year delayed restitution application.
The court noted the 2023 amendment to the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act, introducing sub-clauses removing time limitations. The amendment’s validity remains under review in a separate petition, which the current judgment does not address.
The court referenced the Gouramma alias Gangamma vs Deputy Commissioner, Haveri case, which supported denying relief for unreasonably delayed applications. The bench elaborated: “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 are 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.”
The appeal was dismissed, stating, “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.”
Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 deals with the following: If the granted land of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is transferred without permission, the government will take back the land.
