No relief as there was delay in seeking resumption of grant land, says HC

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: When there is no plausible explanation for the delay of ten years while seeking resumption of grant land that has been sold, no relief can be provided, the High Court of Karnataka has said. The Court dismissed an appeal filed by the daughter-in-law and grandson of a man who had sold the land in 1972.

They however, filed the case for resumption only in 1988, ten years after the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 was enacted. One Subbanna was granted land measuring 4 acres at Alur Duddanahalli Vilalge, Devanahalli, in 1955. The order of grant contained a stipulation that the land in question shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of grant.

However, contrary to the aforesaid condition, the land was sold by Subbanna to one Pillappa in 1968. Pillappa then sold the land to one Munivenkatappa in 1972. In 1988, ten years after the law on prohibition of transfer of certain lands came into force, an application was filed before the assistant commissioner for restoration of the land by the family members of Subbanna. It was allowed by the AC.

But the deputy commissioner returned the matter to the AC as he had not held an inquiry. In 1999, the AC rejected the application. This was challenged before the DC who rejected the appeal in 2010. Subbanna’s daughter-inlaw Rajamma and grandson Mahesha approached the High Court. A single-judge bench on October 11, 2018, dismissed the petition.

An appeal was filed before a division bench, which gave its judgment recently. Disposing the case, the Division Bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said, “In the instant case, admittedly, the land was granted in the year 1955 and the same was alienated in the years 1968 and 1972.

After a delay of 10 years from the enactment of the Act, the application seeking resumption of the land was filed for which no plausible explanation has been offered. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge”.