Karnataka High Court
Mr. N Narasimha Murthy vs Deputy Commissioner on 10 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45751-DB
W.A. No.1474/2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.1474/2023 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
MR. N. NARASIMHA MURTHY
S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/OF DURGIDEVI STREET
VIJAYAPURA TOWN
Digitally
signed by DEVANAHALLI TALUK
RUPA V BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
Location: ...APPELLANT
High Court
Of (BY SRI. GUBBI SWAMY S, ADV.,)
Karnataka
AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU 562114.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION
DODDABALLAPURA 561203.
3. SHRI. MUNIKRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE APPAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.
4. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA
W/O MUNIKRIGHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF
BETTAHALLI VILLAGE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45751-DB
W.A. No.1474/2023
HC-KAR
SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562114
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 & R2
SRI. B.G. NANJUNDARADHYA, ADV., FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN W.P
No.24062/2021 (SC-ST). SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
29.05.2023, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT
PETITION No.24062/2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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 appellant under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 29.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24062/2021 (SC-ST).
2. Sri.Gubbi Swamy S., learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the writ petition without appreciating the material available on record in its -3- NC: 2025:KHC:45751-DB W.A. No.1474/2023 HC-KAR 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 either before the Assistant Commissioner or before the Deputy Commissioner. It is further submitted that the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is a 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 validity of the amendment brought to the Act is under consideration before the learned Single Judge. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.
3. Per contra, Sri.B.G.Nanjundaradhya, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 supports the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the Division Bench of this Court has considered all the aspects and held that if there is any unreasonable delay in filing an -4- NC: 2025:KHC:45751-DB W.A. No.1474/2023 HC-KAR application for restoration, the same is liable to be rejected. The learned Single Judge considered all the aspects including the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and dismissed the writ petition which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 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 legal heirs of the original grantee initiated proceedings under Section 5 of the Act. The records further indicate that the land was originally granted to Dabba Chinnappa on 30.11.1959 and saguvali chit came to be issued on 02.06.1961. The grantee alienated the property in question on 21.03.1967 and thereafter, number of -5- NC: 2025:KHC:45751-DB W.A. No.1474/2023 HC-KAR transfers have taken place between the parties to the proceedings. The legal heirs of the original grantee initiated proceedings under Section 5 of the Act for resumption and restoration of the land in their favour. The Assistant Commissioner, vide order dated 09.06.2017 allowed the application for restoration which was reversed by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 11.03.2020 which was challenged by the appellant. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
6. Admittedly, the initiation of proceedings under Section 5 of the Act is in the years 2008 and 2009 and considering the sale which has taken place in the year 1967, the initiation of proceedings would be more than 41 years from the first sale. We do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge calling for interference in this appeal.
7. It would be useful to refer to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of NEKKANTI -6- NC: 2025:KHC:45751-DB W.A. No.1474/2023 HC-KAR RAMA LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER1, VIVEK M.HINDUJA AND OTHERS Vs. M.ASHWATHA AND OTHERS2, CHHEDI LAL YADAV AND OTHERS Vs. HARI KISHORE YADAV (D) THEIR LRS AND OTHERS3 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 Vs. 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 Vs. 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- 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 6 W.A.No.100101/2024 dated 29.07.2024 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:45751-DB W.A. No.1474/2023 HC-KAR ordinate Bench at pargraphs 3(f), 3(g), 3(h) and 3(i) held as under:
"3. xxxx
(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
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 7 (2022) 2 SCC 25 at Para 20,21 & 22 -8- NC: 2025:KHC:45751-DB W.A. No.1474/2023 HC-KAR 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 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 -9- NC: 2025:KHC:45751-DB W.A. No.1474/2023 HC-KAR 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."
8. The contention that the amendment of the Act is pending consideration before the learned Single Judge cannot be a ground to entertain the application for restoration filed after more than 4 decades of sale. The issue with regard to the amendment to the Act is considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of GOURAMMA, referred supra.
9. In view of the preceding analysis, the unexplained delay of more than 41 years in filing an application under Section 5 of the Act for resumption and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45751-DB W.A. No.1474/2023 HC-KAR restoration of the land cannot be termed as a reasonable time. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly considered that there is an inordinate delay and has dismissed the writ petition, which does not call for any interference in this intra Court appeal.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31