[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Poojari Narayanappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 2025

                                              -1-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC:50130-DB
                                                           W.A. No.1325/2022


                   HC-KAR




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                          DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
                                           PRESENT
                          THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
                                             AND
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL


                              WRIT APPEAL NO.1325/2022 (SC-ST)


                   BETWEEN:


                         SRI. POOJARI NARAYANAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
                         SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

                   1.    SMT. KONAMMA
                         W/O LATE POOJARI NARAYANAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS.
Digitally signed
by RUPA V
Location: High     2.    SRI. ASHOK KUMAR
Court Of                 S/O LATE POOJARI NARAYANAPPA
Karnataka                AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

                   3.    SRI. N. SHANKAR
                         S/O LATE POOJARI NARAYANAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

                   4.    SRI. N. MANIKANTA
                         S/O LATE POOJARI NARAYANAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

                         ALL ARE R/AT. VINOBHA COLONY
                         CHINTAMANI
                         CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 125.
                                                                 ...APPELLANTS
                   (BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY V.K. ADV.,)
                              -2-
                                    NC: 2025:KHC:50130-DB
                                      W.A. No.1325/2022


HC-KAR




AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REVENUE DEPARTMENT
     M S BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR
     DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
     BANGALORE-560 001.

2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
     CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101.

3.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
     CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION
     CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101.

4.   SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
     W/O LATE SRIRAMA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

5.   SMT. SHIVAKUMARI
     D/O LATE SRIRAMA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

     BOTH ARE R/AT.
     NAYANAHALLI VILLAGE
     KONANAPALLI POST
     AMBAJIDURGA POST
     CHITNAMANI TALUK-563125
     CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

                                    ...RESPONDENTS

6.   SRI. G. KRISHNA REDDY
     S/O GOVINDAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
     R/AT. ALAPPA VILLAGE
     GUDEMARIABALLI
                             -3-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC:50130-DB
                                          W.A. No.1325/2022


HC-KAR




     CHIKKABALLAPUR
     CHINTAMANI-563146.
                                   ...PROPOSED RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
     SRI. M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADV., FOR R4 & R5
     SRI. MANJUNATH K.V. ADV., FOR IMPLEADING
          APPLICANT AS R6 ON IA2/2024)


      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA

HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED

ORDER DATED 24/09/2020 IN WP NO.13630/2014 PASSED BY

THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE.          ALLOW THIS APPEAL AS

PRAYED FOR WITH COSTS.       ISSUE SUCH OTHER WRIT OR

ORDER OR DIRECTION GRANTING FURTHER RELIEF TO THE

APPELLANT, AS THE HONBLE COURT MAY DEEMS FIT AND

PROPER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


      THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

ON   25.11.2025,   COMING   ON    FOR   PRONOUNCEMENT     OF

JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED

THE FOLLOWING:


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
       and
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                               -4-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC:50130-DB
                                            W.A. No.1325/2022


HC-KAR




                     CAV 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 24.09.2020 passed by the learned Single

Judge in W.P.No.13630/2014 (SC/ST).

2. Sri.V.K.Narayana Swamy, learned counsel

appearing for the appellants submits that the learned

Single Judge has committed an error in allowing 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 appreciate the findings

recorded by respondent Nos.2 and 3, wherein the

appellant's application for restoration was allowed and the

appeal of respondent Nos.4 and 5 was dismissed. 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

NC: 2025:KHC:50130-DB

HC-KAR

interests of the grantee and there is no limitation provided

under the Act to file an application for restoration and

resumption. It is contended that the learned Single Judge

disposed of the writ petition during the covid-19 pandemic

without hearing the counsel appearing for the appellant

herein. Hence, the review petition was filed, which also

was dismissed. It is further contended that the appellant

has filed an application for production of additional

documents and along with the said application, the

representations dated 10.05.1984 and 01.12.1988 are

produced, which indicate that the appellant sought

resumption of land well within the time, hence, he seeks

to allow the appeal.

3. Per contra, Sri.M.Shivaprakash, learned counsel

for respondent Nos.4 and 5 supports the order of the

learned Single Judge and submits that the Division Bench

of this Court has considered the relevant aspects and held

that if there is any unreasonable delay in filing an

NC: 2025:KHC:50130-DB

HC-KAR

application for restoration, the same is liable to be

rejected.

4. Learned counsel for impleading applicant /

proposed respondent No.6 submits that the proposed

respondent No.6 has purchased 2 acre of land out of 4

acres in Sy.No.31 from Lakshmidevamma/respondent

No.4 vide registered sale deed dated 28.03.2022, which is

not challenged by the appellants. Hence, he seeks to come

on record and further submits that he being the purchaser,

supports the order of the learned Single Judge.

5. Learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to

3 supports the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3

by contending that the appellants are the legal

representatives of grantee and are entitled for resumption

and restoration of land in their favour as the sale is in

violation of the mandate of law.

6. We have heard the arguments of the learned

counsel for the appellants, the learned counsels for

NC: 2025:KHC:50130-DB

HC-KAR

respondents and meticulously perused the material

available on record. We have given our anxious

consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides.

7. The material on record indicates that the land

measuring 4 acres 4 guntas in Sy.No.31 situated at

Nayanahalli Village, Ambajidurga Hobli, Chintamani Taluk,

Chikkaballapura District, was granted to Sri.Muniga

S/o.Avulappa in the year 1935-36 as he belonged to

scheduled caste. The records further indicate that the legal

representatives of the grantee initiated the proceedings

under Section 5 of the Act. The respondent No.3 vide

order dated 22.02.2010, allowed the application for

restoration of land; being aggrieved, the purchasers filed

appeal before the respondent No.2 and the said appeal

came to be dismissed vide order dated 04.12.2013. Being

aggrieved, the purchasers filed the writ petition assailing

both the orders, wherein the learned Single Judge allowed

the writ petition.

NC: 2025:KHC:50130-DB

HC-KAR

8. The records also indicate that the initiation of

proceedings under Section 5 of the Act is in the year

2006-07, which is more than 28 years after the Act came

into force and restoration of the land is sought which was

sold in the year 1943. The aforesaid delay cannot be

termed as a reasonable delay in filing an application under

Section 5 of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellants

makes a reference with regard to additional documents

produced along with the application. The document Nos.1

and 2 are the representations dated 10.05.1984 and

01.12.1988 alleged to have been sent to the Tahasildar

seeking for restoration of land. In our considered view, the

said documents cannot be looked into as there is no

whisper with regard to sending of such representation to

the Tahisldar in this appeal or there is any mention before

the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner.

Nothing has prevented the appellant to press the

documents referred supra, if they are really submitted and

they would have sought for restoration by filing of the

NC: 2025:KHC:50130-DB

HC-KAR

application under Section 5 of the Act in the year 2006-07.

Filing of an application later itself makes it clear that no

attempt has been made by the grantee or the legal

representatives of the grantee for restoration of land

within the reasonable time. Alleged representations are

submitted to the Tahasildar and not to the authority under

Section 5 of the Act.

9. Insofar as the contention that the counsel for

the appellant herein could not represent in the writ

proceedings and in his absence, the impugned order is

passed, has also no merit. The perusal of the order of the

learned Single Judge makes it very clear that the learned

counsel for the appellant was represented before the

learned Single Judge and thereafter the review petition

came to be filed in R.P.No.15/2022 on the same ground

and the learned Single Judge by well reasoned order,

dismissed the review petition holding that there is no error

apparent on the face of the record to review the order

dated 24.09.2020.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:50130-DB

HC-KAR

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of

NEKKANTI 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.

(2020) 14 SCC 232

(2019) 1 Kant.L.J. 819 SC

(2018) 12 SCC 527

(2020) 14 SCC 236

2025 SCC OnLine Kar 6517

W.A.No.100101/2024 dated 29.07.2024

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:50130-DB

HC-KAR

In the case of GOURAMMA, referred supra, the Co-

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

(2022) 2 SCC 25 at Para 20,21 & 22

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:50130-DB

HC-KAR

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 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

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:50130-DB

HC-KAR

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."

11. The issue with regard to the amendment to the

Act is also considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the

case of GOURAMMA, referred supra.

12. In view of the preceding analysis, the

unexplained delay of more than 28 years in filing an

application under Section 5 of the Act for resumption and

restoration of the land from the date of commencement of

the Act, cannot be termed as a reasonable time.

Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:50130-DB

HC-KAR