Delay, finality of judgment; HC dismisses case challenging sale of SC land

Bengaluru, NT Bureau: The High Court stating that “Writ Court should not entertain stale causes,” dismissed a petition seeking restoration of land granted to a Schedule Caste person which he had sold soon after.

The original grantee’s sons approached the High Court in 2020 seeking to implement the order of the Assistant Commissioner who had restored the land in 1986. But in the meantime, the land buyer had approached the High Court and won his case before a single-judge bench and then a division bench in 2001.

Dismissing the petition on July 21, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, “The restoration order passed by assistant commissioner was set aside by this Court in 2001 and the captioned petition is filed in 2020 and therefore this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of petitioners who are guilty of laches.

The plea based on justice, equity and good conscience is no good alibi in expiation of the sin of gross delay. The writ Court should not entertain stale causes.”

Land was granted to one Krishna, who belonged to a Scheduled Caste in the 1970s under the Mysuru Land Revenue Rules. The upset price was fixed at Rs.300 per acre and Rs.200 per acre was waived off.

Twenty other persons belonging to Scheduled Castes were similarly granted land. Krishna however sold his land to one Bhoomi Reddy. After the coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act in 1978 proceedings were initiated against Bhoomi Reddy in respect of ten pieces of land sold to him by SC/ST allottees.

The Assistant Commissioner in an order dated July 25, 1986 declared the transaction in Reddy’s favour as null and void. It was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner. Reddy questioned the order before the HC in 1987.

The Court set aside the order of restoration on ground that the grant was made on reduced upset price and therefore the condition of non-alienation of property did not apply. A division bench of the HC upheld the single judge order. A review petition was also dismissed.