Karnataka High Court
Sri. N V Shankar vs Deputy Commissioner on 10 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5944-DB
WA No. 147 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
WRIT APPEAL NO. 147 OF 2024 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI. N V SHANKAR
S/O LATE VARABADHRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: NEETIMANGALA VILLAGE,
SHEELANERE HOBLI,
K.R. PETE TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUNIL S RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. T SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
NARAYANA
UMA
Location: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HIGH
COURT OF MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 401.
KARNATAKA
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
PANDAVAPURA - 571 434.
3. SRI. RAMEGOWDA
S/O MUDDALINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: NEETIMANGALA VILLAGE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5944-DB
WA No. 147 of 2024
NEELANERE HOBLI
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 435.
4. SRI. DEVEGOWDA
S/O MUDDALINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: NEETIMANGALA VILLAGE
NEELANERE HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 435.
5. SRI. NINGEGOWDA
S/O MUDDALINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NEETIMANGALA VILLAGE
NEELANERE HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 435.
6. SRI BORALINGEGOWDA
S/O MUDDALINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NETIMANGALA VILLAGE
NEELANERE HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 435.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.07.2023 ONE PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P No. 5981/2022, FILED BY THE
APPELLANT HEREIN AND CONSEQUENTLY PASS NECESSARY
ORDERS TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:5944-DB
WA No. 147 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)
This appeal raises a challenge to the order of learned
Single Judge dated 19.07.2023 passed in Writ Petition
No.5981/2022, whereby the learned Single Judge has
dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein, by stating in
paragraph No.4 onwards as under:-
"4. In the present case on hand, the original
grantee during the lifetime has alienated the
land in 1960 and has filed an application
seeking restoration in the year 1979. The said
application was rejected on 31.07.1981. The
present petitioner herein has filed second
application seeking restoration in the year
2016. This application was also rejected.
5. In the instant case, this Court would find
that there is a delay of 56 years in filing the
petition by the petitioner herein. While the
original grantee suffered an order, he again
moved an application after an inordinate delay
of 19 years. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
above cited judgment has held that where
statute does not provide for limitation, the
authorities and State must act consciously and
if the process of invoking the provisions of
NC: 2025:KHC:5944-DB
statute is delayed and is initiated after long
lapse of time, the delay by itself would act as
an impediment. Thus, without exception and
coming across various rules of law, the Apex
Court has categorically stated the law in
respect of exercise of power/jurisdiction under
statute where no limitation is stipulated. The
law on the point of delay and laches to invoke
the provisions of PTCL Act is well settled by
catena of judgments.
6. The restoration petition filed by the
petitioner herein is liable to be rejected in the
light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the
judgment cited supra. If original grantee has
suffered an order and his application seeking
restoration was rejected in the year 1981, the
present petitioner, claiming to be the grandson
could not have maintained the second
application in the year 2016.
7. The second application seeking
resumption is not maintainable as held by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri
Narayanaswamy vs. The District
Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District
and Others. The relevant paragraph of the
judgment rendered by the Division Bench is as
under:
"11. In view of the aforesaid undisputed
facts and circumstances, we are of the view
that once the proceedings under Sections 4
and 5 of the PTCL Act are filed/initiated and
the same are either withdrawn or dismissed
on merits, a fresh petition/second petition
NC: 2025:KHC:5944-DB
on the same cause of action and the same
subject matter under Sections 4 and 5 of
the PTCL Act is not maintainable and the
same is liable to be dismissed on this
ground alone. The second petition is clearly
barred by the principles of estoppel,
acquiescence, abandonment and waiver.
Accordingly, though a finding in this regard
has not been recorded by either the
Learned Single Judge or the authorities,
having regard to the undisputed material on
record, a second petition under Sections 4
and 5 of the PTCL Act would not be
maintainable and the same is liable to be
rejected on this ground alone."
Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with
the concurrent orders passed by the
authorities.
8. In view of discussion made supra, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is devoid of merits and
accordingly, stands dismissed."
2. Though the submission of learned counsel for
appellant is that the subject matter of challenge before the
learned Single Judge was only to an order passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, not condoning the delay, learned Single
Judge decided the petition by going into the merits of the case
and dismissed the writ petition, which is clearly untenable.
3. We are not in agreement with the said submission
made by the learned counsel for the reason that the learned
NC: 2025:KHC:5944-DB
Single Judge while exercising the writ jurisdiction is within his
right, to decide all aspects of the case, including the merits, if
the facts are not in dispute. Surely, the aspect of limitation
which is a species of delay and latches, the learned Single
Judge is right to consider the main issue in the petition, and
decide the same.
4. We, having seen the facts which arose for
consideration of the learned Single Judge, are of the view that
the learned Single Judge is right in dismissing the writ petition
for the reasons stated in the aforesaid paragraphs.
5. The appeal being without merits, is dismissed.
Pending I.As., do not survive for consideration and they
stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(V KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
Bss
