Karnataka High Court
Smt. Venkatamma vs State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB
WA No. 1035 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1035 OF 2025 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. VENKATAMMA
W/O. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
2. SMT. AKKAYAMMA
D/O. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
3. SRI. RAVI KUMAR
S/O. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT UGANAVADI VILLAGE,
Digitally KASABA HOBLI,
signed by DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
NIRMALA PIN CODE-562 110.
DEVI
...APPELLANTS
Location: (BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE)
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB
WA No. 1035 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BEHIND KANDHAYA BHAVAN,
K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 009.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION,
2ND FLOOR, KANDHAYA BHAVAN,
K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 009.
4. TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU NORTH ADDL. TALUK,
NOW AT YELAHANKA TALUK,
YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU-560 064.
5. SRI. VENKATESHAPPA
S/O. LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
6. SRI. SURESH
S/O. VENKATESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
7. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI
D/O. VENKATESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
8. SRI. MANJUNATHA
S/O. VENKATESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS No.4 TO 8
R/AT NAGADASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH ADDL. TALUK,
BENGALURU-560064.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB
WA No. 1035 of 2025
HC-KAR
9. SRI. CHIKKABASAPPA
S/O. CHANNABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT RAJAKUNTE VILLAGE,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH ADDL. TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 064.
10. SRI. PAPAIAH
S/O. SONNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NAGADASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH ADDL. TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 064.
11. SRI. EERANNA
S/O. BYANNA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NAGADASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH ADDL. TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 064.
12. SRI. NARASIMHAIAH
S/O. CHOWDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 1062, NAGAPPA BLOCK,
SRIRAMPURA,
BENGALURU-560 021.
13. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O. P. RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
14. SRI. RAMACHANDRAPPA
S/O. PAPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB
WA No. 1035 of 2025
HC-KAR
15. SRI. RAMESHA
S/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
16. SRI. SANDEEP
S/O. RAMESHA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
17. YUKTHA
D/O. RAMESHA,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
No.14 TO 17 ARE R/AT
NAGADASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH ADDL. TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 064.
18. SMT. SUNANDA
D/O RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT HONNAGHATTA VILLAGE,
KODIGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK-561 203
19. SRI.N.R.BYREGOWDA
S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
20. KUMARI. BHAVYA SHREE
D/O BYREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS
REPTD BY HER FATHER AS
NATURAL GUARDIAN R-19
21. SMT. PUSHPALATHA
D/O RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB
WA No. 1035 of 2025
HC-KAR
22. SMT. SHANTHA
D/O RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
No.19 TO 22 ARE R/AT
NAGADASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU 560064
23. SMT. C.H. AMEERUNISSA
D/O VEERAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.14, 1ST B CROSS,
MUTTAPPA BLOCK
BENGALURU 560 032
24. SMT. LAKSHMI RAO
W/O DR.SREEPATHI RAO
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/AT NO.392, NO.12TH A MAIN,
A SECTOR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU 560064
25. SMT. NOORUNNISA BEGUM
W/O K.RAHEEM
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.69, 12TH 'A' CROSS,
BHUVANESHWARI NAGARA,
BENGALURU 560 064
26. SRI.KRISHNA KUMAR SINDE
S/O LATE SHANKAR RAO SINDE
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT NO.129, 9-10TH CROSS
MIDDLE MARGOSA ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU 560 003
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB
WA No. 1035 of 2025
HC-KAR
27. SMT. D.BABAMMA
WO D.PULLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
28. SMT.K.C.BABAMMA
W/O C.NAGUR
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.3/408
SAI KUTEERA ROAD,
PRODHATHUR,
KADAPA DISTRICT
ANDRA PRADESH 516 360
29. SRI.P.RAVANAIAH
S/O LATE PONDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT NO.58, ISHAK EXTENSION,
PUTTENAHALLI MOUNT CARLO
BEHIND, YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU 560 064
30. SMT.V.SUBBALAKSHMI
W/O V.VENKATESHWARALU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT 1ST MAIN ROAD,
VENKATALA, NEAR BHUVAN COLLEGE,
MARUTHI NAGARA,
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU 560 064.
31. SRI. Y. PRASANNA MURTHY
S/O LATE Y PAKEERALAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT NO 12/252. DHANARAJU ROAD.
KADAPA ROAD, MAIDUKURU,
KADAPA DISTRICT
ANDRA PRADESH - 516 360
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB
WA No. 1035 of 2025
HC-KAR
32. SMT. M.MAHALAKSHMI
W/O UDAYA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.32, 3RD CROSS,
8TH MAIN ROAD,
SADANANDHA NAGAR
BENGALURU 560 038
33. SMT.R.PREMA KUMARI
W/O M.RAGHUPATHI
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
R/AT NO.15, JCO COLONY,
2ND CROSS, VIVEKANANDA NAGARA,
MS NAGARA POST,
BENGALURU 560033
34. SRI.DEEPESH YERAHALLI KENGE GOWDA
S/O T.KENGE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.97, 1ST CROSS,
SHARADA NAGARA,
SUBRMANYAPURA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 061
35. SRI.E.RAMAN
S/O POONU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
36. SRI.PRAMOOZ
S/O CHANDRAN
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.1657,
1ST FLOOR, PRASANTHA NAGARA,
T-DASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU 560 057
37. SRI.N.B.SUDENDRA RAO
LATE S.H. BHUJAGENDRA RAO
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB
WA No. 1035 of 2025
HC-KAR
R/AT NO.166-Y, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
4TH PHASE, 7TH BLOCK,
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
38. B.SADASHIVA REDDY
S/O LATE B.LINGA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NO.2ND CROSS,
KRISHNAPPA EXTENSION,
SANJAY NAGARA,
BENGALURU - 94.
39. SMT. M MANJULA
W/O SRI MANJUNATHAN
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RA/T NO. 16, NEW NO. 8/1
6TH CROS MODI GARDEN
J C NAGARA
BENGALURU 560 006
40. SRI. JALAPATHI SRINIVASALU
S/O BALAKANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT QUARTERS NO. P-124
VASANTHA ENCLAVE
PRTC J C NAGAR
BENGALURU 560 006
41. M/S REPCO HOMES FINANCE LTD (RHFL)
REGISTERED OFFICE AT REPCO TOWER
OFFICE ADDRESS AT NO. 109
1ST FLOOR, MITTAL TOWER
M G ROAD
BENGALURU 560 001
REPTD BY ITS SRI. RAGHU
42. SRI KANAKARA MALLESHWARA REDDY
S/O MALLA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB
WA No. 1035 of 2025
HC-KAR
R/AT NO. 42, 5TH CROSS,
K -APEX SB , KNG HOUSE
MODI GARDEN, J C NAGARA
BENGALURU 560 006
43. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI
W/O B.H.JAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT NO.5, PWD,
TEACHERS QUARTERS JAKKUR,
BENGALURU 560 064
44. SRI.P.SUDHAKAR
S/O GANGAMMA.P.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT NO.11B, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
VINAYAKA NAGARA, IAF POST,
BENGALURU 560 063
45. SRI.D.SANTHEEL KUMAR
S/O LATE R. DAMODHARAN
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NO. BN BSF QUARTERS,
NO.1, 63, STS BSF,
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU 560 063
46. SMT. CHANDRAKALA
W/O LATE MALLIKARJUNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
BRANCH OFFICE NO.1,
TUMKUR 572 102
47. SRI.SURENDRA
S/O JYOTHI MALA KONDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NO.2270, MIG 3RD STAGE,
21ST CROSS, YELAHANKA TOWN
BENGALURU- 560 064
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA FOR R1 TO R4)
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB
WA No. 1035 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN
WP NO.28003/2023 DATED 20/12/2024, BY ALLOWING THE
APPEAL AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application ‒ I.A No.1/2025, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
2. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 28003 of 2023 (SC/ST). The appellants had filed the said petition impugning an order dated 25.08.2011 passed by respondent No.3 (Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub- Division), dismissing the petition filed by Respondents Nos.5 to 8 for restoration of the land measuring 1 acre and 38 guntas falling in Survey No.53 of Nagadasanahalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB WA No. 1035 of 2025 HC-KAR [the subject land]. The appellants also impugned an order dated 17.03.2023 passed by respondent No. 2 [Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District], whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants against the order dated 25.08.2011 is rejected. The appellants claim that the subject land was granted to their ancestor, Uganavadi Muniswami alias Muniswamappa [the original grantee], on 22.10.1940. The original grantee had sold the subject land under a sale deed dated 12.07.1951 to respondent no. 9 [Sri Chikkabasappa]. He, in turn, had sold the subject property to respondent No.10 [Sri Papaiah] under the sale deed dated 14.03.1960. Sri Papaiah thereafter, sold the Subject Land to respondent No.11 [Sri Eeranna] under the sale deed dated 08.05.1960.
3. The original grantee expired on 06.05.1966.
4. Thereafter, Sri Eeranna sold the Subject Land to respondent No.12 [Sri Narasimhaiah] under a sale deed dated 02.06.1970. Sri Narasimhaiah further sold the subject land to respondent No.13 [Smt. Muniyamma] under the sale deed dated 10.11.1975. It is stated that respondent Nos.13 to 22 sold the
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB WA No. 1035 of 2025 HC-KAR subject land to respondent No.23 [Smt. C.H.Ameerunissa] under a sale deed dated 16.01.2009.
5. Respondent Nos. 5 to 8, who are claiming through the original grantee, filed a petition for resumption of the subject land before the Assistant Commissioner sometime in the year 2010. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the said application by an order dated 25.08.2011 inter alia on the ground that the applicants had not submitted the original documents pertaining to the grant of land in favour of the original grantee. The Assistant Commissioner held that in the absence of the original documents, the question whether the Subject Land is required to be resumed could not be adjudicated.
6. Aggrieved by the said decision, the wife and children of respondent No.5 (or the daughter-in-law and grand children of the original grantee) preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. However, the said appeal was also dismissed by an order dated 17.03.2023. The learned Deputy Commissioner noted that the application for resumption had been filed almost 59 years after the first alienation and 31 years after the commencement of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB WA No. 1035 of 2025 HC-KAR (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [PTCL Act]; thus, it would not be appropriate to entertain the appeal.
7. The learned Single Judge concurred with the said view and dismissed the appellants' writ petition.
8. Undisputedly, the question whether the application for resumption of granted land filed after an unreasonably excessive delay is required to be entertained, is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court held in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka1 that an inordinate delay in filing an application for the restoration of land that was allegedly alienated in violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act could not be condoned.
9. The provisions of Section 5 of the PTCL Act were amended by the introduction of clauses (c) and (d), by virtue of Act No.30 of 2023. The import of the said amendment came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Gouramma @ Gangamma Vs. The Deputy Commissioner and others2 and the Court observed as under:
1
(2020) 14 SCC 232 2 2024:KHC-D:10666-DB
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB WA No. 1035 of 2025 HC-KAR "(d) The Amendment Act that is made applicable with retrospective effect is only a duplication of the existing legal position. Such duplication happened even in English legislative history, hardly needs to be mentioned. The question of delay is a matter of limitation which this statute is silent about. Clauses (c) and (d), now introduced to Section 5(1) of the Act, do not bring any change in the statutory scheme. At the most, they are declaratory of what the statute has been all through, so far as the limitation period is concerned. Nobody disputes that there was no limitation period earlier and there is no limitation period now too. Laches, which would involve a host of factors, pertains to the Domain of Equity.
(e) Nekkanti supra does not speak of "limitation period" at all. What it discusses is, the long lapse of time between alienation of granted land and the filing of claim for its resumption. Observations occurring in para 8 of the decision lend support to this view:
"8. However, the question that arises is with regard to terms of Section 5 of the Act which enables any interested person to make an application for having the transfer annulled as void under Section 4 of the Act. This Section does not prescribe any period within which such an application can be made. Neither does it prescribe the period within which suo motu action may be taken. This Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs., (2017) 6 Scale 459 and also in the case of Ningappa v. Dy. Commissioner (C.A. No. 3131 of 2007, decided on 14.07.2011) reiterated a settled position in law that whether Statute provided for a period of limitation, provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. It is held that action whether on an application of the parties, or suo motu, must be taken within a reasonable time. This relief was granted to the farmers due to flood in the Kosi River which make agricultural operations impossible. An application for restoration was made after 24 years and was allowed. It is in that background that this Court upheld that it was unreasonable to do so. We have no hesitation in upholding that the present application for restoration of land made by respondent-Rajappa was made after an unreasonably long period and was liable to be dismissed on that ground. Accordingly, the judgments of the Karnataka
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB WA No. 1035 of 2025 HC-KAR High Court, namely, R. Rudrappa v. Deputy Commissioner, (2000) 1 Karnataka Law Journal, 523, Maddurappa v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 4 Karnataka Law Journal, 303 and G. Maregouda v. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga, (2000) 2 Kr. L.J.Sh. N.4B holding that there is no limitation provided by Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, an application can be made at any time, are overruled. ....."
(emphasis is ours) Apparently, the law declared by the Apex Court in the above case has not been altered by the subject amendment, even in the least.
(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."
10. Considering that there is no dispute in the present case that there is an unreasonable delay in filing the application for resumption, we find no fault with the decisions of the Deputy
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB WA No. 1035 of 2025 HC-KAR Commissioner as well as the learned Single Judge in dismissing the action instituted for the restoration of the subject land.
11. We may also note that the subject land was the subject matter of two sale and purchase transactions even prior to the demise of the original grantee. Given the history of transactions, the action for restoration of the subject land would also be barred by laches.
12. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE Vmb List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4