SC ST ಯ PTCL ಆಸ್ತಿಯನ್ನ ಯಾವಾಗ ಬೇಕಾದರು ಹಿಂದಕ್ಕೆ ಪಡೆಯಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ - ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಹೈಕೋರ್ಟ್‌

Описание: Citation Name :- M Manjula & Ors Vs Deputy Commisioner & Ors

Restoration of land cannot be permitted after 12 years: High Court

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

Unreasonable Delay In Seeking Restoration Of Granted Land Can Be Ground For Denying Relief: Karnataka High Court

Mail ID: [email protected]
Please send queries to this email

Thanks for watching my videos #Legalknowledgeinkannada pls like share subscribe and press 🔔 icon for notifications #Anitha Girish Gowda

Will deed# kannada #self acquired #ancestral #cancel #valid #bbmppropertygps #eKhata #CodeofCivilProcedure(Karnataka Amendmen8t) Bill2023 #Cpc2023kannada #cpcammendmentkannada
#FIR #pcr #illigallayout #illegalconstruction #bdatobescom #bdalisted #bda #bdalayouts #shivaramkaranth

#jointfamily #jointfamilyproperty #ancestralproperty #giftdeed #willdeed

Thanks for watching my videos #Legalknowledgeinkannada
email Id: [email protected]

#Legalknowledgeinkannada pls like share subscribe and press 🔔 icon for notifications #Anitha Girish Gowda
#advocate #kannadalaw #freelawconsultation
#kanoonu #legal #Anitha

#youtubevideos #viral #youtubekannadalaw
#dismissalofcomplaint #pcr #FIR #privatecomplaint #section202,203kannada
#BDAlistedunauthorizedlayouts #eKhata


#AnithaGirishGowd
Copyright Disclaimer: under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 states that copyrighted material is being used for fair use purposes. Fair use is a legal doctrine that allows the use of copyrighted material without the copyright owner's permission under certain conditions
“FAIR USE”
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright At 1976, allowance is made for ‘fair use’ for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.
Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

#women'spropertyrights #women'sproperty #hindusuccessionact2005 #partition