Linguistic defect may defeat the intent of legislation: Karnataka High Court  

Observing that a linguistic defect may defeat the intent of legislation, the High Court of Karnataka has said that legislative process has to be undertaken with a lot of care, caution, and expertise.

Observing that a linguistic defect may defeat the intent of legislation, the High Court of Karnataka has said that legislative process has to be undertaken with a lot of care, caution, and expertise.

“Law speaks through language. If language is not properly employed, what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, what needs to be done remains undone or misdone. A linguistic defect thus may defeat the intent of legislation,” the court observed.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil made these observations while taking note of the amendment made to the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, in July 2023.

The Bench dismissed an appeal filed by Gowramma of Davangere, who had challenged the order passed by a single judge refusing to restore the land. Both the single judge and the Bench noted that it was not a land granted under the Act. The amendment had inserted clauses (c) and (d) to Section 5(1) of the Act to state that “notwithstanding anything contained in any law, there shall be no limitation of time to invoke the provisions of this Act”.

Pointing out that “it hardly needs to be stated that at no point of time, the 1978 Act prescribed any period of limitation for moving application for the resumption of granted land after it is alienated,” the Bench said that “the amendment Act that is made applicable with retrospective effect is only a duplication of the existing legal position.”

At the most, the amendments are are declaratory of what the statute has been all through, so far as the limitation period is concerned, the Bench observed.

“If the legislature intended to overcome the verdicts of the apex court on interpretation the Act over belated claims for resumption of lands granted under the Act, then the legislation would have employed a different terminology,” the Bench said.