Karnataka High Court
Sri A K Shivamurthy vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB
WA No. 957 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 957 OF 2022 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI A K SHIVAMURTHY
S/O A K RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
RESIDENT OF DAGENAKATTE VILLAGE
CHANNAGERE TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
2. SRI THIPPESH A K
S/O RANGAPPA A K
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDENT OF DAGENAKATTE VILLAGE
CHANNAGERE TALUK
Digitally DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577 001.
signed by ...APPELLANTS
RUPA V
(BY SRI. SAGAR B B., ADVOCATE)
Location:
High Court AND:
Of Karnataka
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
DAVANAGERE 577 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB
WA No. 957 of 2022
HC-KAR
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE SUB DIVISION
DAVANAGERE 577 001.
4. THE TAHASILDAR
CHANNAGERE TALUK
CHANNAGERE
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577 001.
5. SRI SHIVALINGAPPA
S/O NINGAPPA
AGED MAJOR
6. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
W/O DASHARATHAPPAA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
7. SRI D BASAVARAJAPPA
S/O DASHARATHAPPAA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
7(a) SMT. UMA
W/O LATE D BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
7(b) SMT. SAHANA
D/O LATE D BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
7(c) SAGAR
S/O LATE D BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
7(d) NAGARAJ
S/O LATE D BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
8. SRI D MANJAPPA
S/O DASHARATHAPPAA
AGE MAJOR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB
WA No. 957 of 2022
HC-KAR
9. SMT. VANI
W/O B G JAGANNATH
AGE MAJOR
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
DAGINAKATTE VILLAGE
CHANNAGERE TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1-R4;
SRI A NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R9;
R6, R7(A TO D) & R8 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE ORDER
DATED 13TH SEPTEMBER 2022 IN WP No.1617/2020 (SC/ST)
AND ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.1617/2020 (SC-ST). -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB WA No. 957 of 2022 HC-KAR
2. Sri.Sagar B.B, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the writ petition without appreciating the material available on record in its proper perspective. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to take note of the fact that there was no opportunity to explain the delay before the Assistant Commissioner or before the Deputy Commissioner. It is further submitted that the provisions of the Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act') is welfare legislation with a specific object to protect the interests of the grantee and there is no limitation provided under the Act to file an application for restoration and resumption. It is also submitted that the issue with regard to the validity to the amendment brought to the Act is under consideration before the learned Single Judge. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB WA No. 957 of 2022 HC-KAR
3. Per contra, Sri.A.Nagarajappa, learned counsel for respondent No.9 supports the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the Division Bench of this Court has considered all the aspects and affirmed the interference by the authority and the learned Single Judge, if the delay in filing the application for restoration is beyond a reasonable period. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for respondent No.9 and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides.
5. The material on record indicates that the grandfather of the appellants i.e., Sri.Durgappa was granted land in Sy.No.139 (old No.79/3) measuring 5 acres situated at Daginakatte Village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District vide order dated 20.05.1950. The -6- NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB WA No. 957 of 2022 HC-KAR grantee sold the subject land in favour of one Sri.Shivalingappa vide registered sale deed dated 22.08.1957. Later, the said property was sold in favour of Sri.Dasharathappa by the registered sale deed dated 12.04.1997. Thereafter, respondent No.7- Sri.D.Basavarajappa purchased the same on 04.07.2011. Admittedly, the legal heirs of the grantee filed an application under Section 5 of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner seeking for resumption and restoration of the land. The said application came to be rejected which was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. The initiation of proceedings under Section 5 of the Act is in the year 2011 and considering the sale is of the year 1957, the initiation of proceedings would me more than 54 years from the first sale and 32 years from the date of commencement of the Act. The learned Single Judge considering the law on point affirmed the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB WA No. 957 of 2022 HC-KAR We do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge.
6. In view of the same, it would be useful to refer to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and Another1, Vivek M.Hinduja Vs. M.Aswatha2, Chhedi Lal Yadav Vs. Hari Kishore Yadav3 and Ningappa Vs. Deputy Commissioner and Others4 wherein it was held that the application for resumption or restoration cannot be entertained beyond a reasonable period. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sri.Keshavamurthy and Another v. Special Deputy Commissioner and Others5 considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra as well as the decision in the case of Smt.Gouramma @ Gangamma v. 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 2 (2019) 1 Kant.L.J. 819 SC 3 (2018) 12 SCC 527 4 (2020) 14 SCC 236 5 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 6517 -8- NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB WA No. 957 of 2022 HC-KAR Deputy Commissioner, Haveri and Others6 held that the application seeking restoration should be within a reasonable period of time. In the case of Gouramma referred supra, the Co-ordinate Bench at para 3(f), (g),
(h) and (i) held as under:
(f) It may be true, that the legislative debates might have taken place about the observations of the Apex Court in Nekkanti and other such cases while passing the Amendment Bill. That per se does not lend credence to the contention that the said amendment intends to invalidate the law declared by the highest court of the country which it did after considering all aspects of the matter including the sense of equity & justice. If the Legislature intended to silence the voice of Nekkanti, it would have employed a different terminology. We repeat that, ordinarily, delay is decided by computing the period of limitation prescribed by law, whereas "laches" is decided keeping in view a host of factors. Cases are repleat in Law Reports relating to delay and laches in writ jurisdiction under Articles 12, 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. This is only to illustrate.
(g) There is a marked difference between 'delay & laches' that operate in equity and 'limitation & delay' that obtain in law. The following observations of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. N.Murugesan7 make out this point:
"Delay, laches and acquiescence 6 W.A.No.100101/2024 dated 29.07.2024 7 (2022) 2 SCC 25 at Para 20,21 & 22 -9- NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB WA No. 957 of 2022 HC-KAR
20. The principles governing delay, laches, and acquiescence are overlapping and interconnected on many occasions.
However, they have their distinct characters and distinct elements. One can say that delay is the genus to which laches and acquiescence are species. Similarly, laches might be called a genus to a species by name acquiescence. However, there may be a case where acquiescence is involved, but not laches. These principles are common law principles, and perhaps one could identify that these principles find place in various statutes which restrict the period of limitation and create nonconsideration of condonation in certain circumstances.... The underlying principle governing these concepts would be one of estoppel. The question of prejudice is also an important issue to be taken note of by the court. Laches.
21. The word "laches" is derived from the French language meaning "remissness and slackness". It thus involves unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a claim involving an equitable relief while causing prejudice to the other party. It is neglect on the part of a party to do an act which law requires while asserting a right, and therefore, must stand in the way of the party getting relief or remedy.
22. Two essential factors to be seen are the length of the delay and the nature of acts done during the interval. As stated, it would also involve acquiescence on the part of the party approaching the court apart from the change in position in the interregnum. Therefore, it would be unjustifiable for a
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB WA No. 957 of 2022 HC-KAR Court of Equity to confer a remedy on a party who knocks its doors when his acts would indicate a waiver of such a right. By his conduct, he has put the other party in a particular position, and therefore, it would be unreasonable to facilitate a challenge before the court. Thus, a man responsible for his conduct on equity is not expected to be allowed to avail a remedy."
(h) We are told at the Bar that the subject Amendment has been put in challenge in W.P.No.27496/2023 and that, matter is pending consideration. We make it clear that construction of a statute is one thing and its validity is another. We do not want to say even a word about the validity, that is being examined by the learned Single Judge before whom the matter is pending. We have only placed our interpretation on the amended provisions of the Act and nothing beyond.
(i) Before parting with this case, we are constrained to observe that, legislative process is not simple and easy. It has to be undertaken with a lot of care, caution & 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. More is not necessary to specify.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the amendment of the Act is pending consideration, is answered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Gouramma referred supra.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB WA No. 957 of 2022 HC-KAR
8. In view of the preceding analysis, the unexplained delay of more than 54 years and 32 years in filing an application under Section 5 of the Act for resumption and restoration of the land cannot be termed as a reasonable time. The learned Single Judge has rightly considered that there is a inordinate delay and dismissed the writ petition, which does not call for any interference. The appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly, rejected.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31