Karnataka High Court
Byrappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:3310-DB
W.A. No.52/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.52/2022 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
BYRAPPA
S/O LATE CHOWDAMUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT. CHIKKAGUBBI VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU 560 049.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed (BY SRI. D.C. THIMMARAYAPPA, ADV.,)
by ARSHIFA
BAHAR KHANAM AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU - 560001.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU SUB DIVISION
BENGALURU - 560001.
4. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE DODDA MUNISWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:3310-DB
W.A. No.52/2022
5. NARAYANA REDDY
S/O LATE DODDA MUNISWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
6. MEENAKSHAMMA
W/O LATE DODDA MUNISWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
7. VASUDEVA REDDY
S/O LATE DODDA MUNISWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
8. KODANDARAM REDDY
S/O LATE DODDA MUNISWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
9. SOMASHEKAR REDDY
S/O LATE DODDA MUNISWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
10. GURU REDDY
S/O LATE DODDA MUNISWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
11. MANJULA
W/O LATE DODDA MUNISWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
12. KANTHAMMA
D/O LATE DODDA MUNISWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 4 TO 12 ARE
R/AT. MARAGONDANAHALLI
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
THAMBUCHETTY PALYA
BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 036.
13. AKKAYAMMA
W/O LATE SRINIVASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
14. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY
S/O LATE SRINIVASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:3310-DB
W.A. No.52/2022
15. RAMESH REDDY
S/O LATE SRINIVAS REDDY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
16. NAGARAJA REDDY
S/O LATE SRINIVASA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
17. SURENDRA REDDY
S/O LATE DODDA MUNISWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 13 TO 17 ARE
R/AT. CHELLAKERE VILLAGE
KALYAN NAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560043.
18. H. KAVITHA
W/O H.D. BALAKRISHNEGOWDA
NO.12, 80 FEET ROAD
PADMANABHA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 070.
19. K.N. KRISHNA REDDY
S/O LATE NANJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
R/AT. NO.41/9, 13TH CROSS
6TH D MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE-560038.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DEVARA C.H. GOVT., ADV., FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION
NO.50370/2018 DATED 1.8.2019. PASS ANY OTHER ORDER/S
AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:3310-DB
W.A. No.52/2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal is filed by respondent No.5 in the
writ petition filed by respondent No.19 herein. The writ
petition was filed seeking the following reliefs:
"i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing
the impugned order passed by the 2nd
Respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru
Rural District bearing No.SC ST(A)39/2013-14
dated 06.06.2018 (Produced as Annexure "A");
and /or
ii) Issue such other further Writs,
Orders or Directions, as this Hon'ble Court
deems it necessary to grant in the facts and
circumstances of the case in the interest of
justice and equity."
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the learned Single Judge has allowed the
petition filed on the ground that the application filed for
restoration of land under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes
NC: 2025:KHC:3310-DB
and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain
Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act') was highly
belated. It is submitted that the factual aspects of the
matter has not been considered by the learned Single
Judge.
4. However, we notice from the facts of record
that the original grant was dated 30.04.1969. Thereafter,
the first sale had admittedly occurred on 28.09.1970.
Thereafter, two more sales have occurred and finally the
writ petitioner had acquired the property by registered
sale deed dated 25.08.2006. The learned Single Judge has
clearly noticed that it was only in the year 2010-11 that
the application for restoration of the land under Section 5
of the PTCL Act was filed by the appellant herein and that
the orders were passed by the Assistant Commissioner on
01.04.2013 dismissing the said application. On appeal filed
by the grantee, the Deputy Commissioner by order dated
06.06.2018 had allowed the appeal, which was under
challenge in the writ petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:3310-DB
5. The learned Single Judge considered the
contentions of the parties and found that the order passed
on 06.06.2018 by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal
could not be sustained for the simple reason that after
coming into force of the PTCL Act on 01.01.1979, the
grantee had taken absolutely no steps to seek restoration
of the land for 30 long years. It was only in the year 2010-
11 that the application for restoration had been filled.
Since absolutely no reasons were forthcoming for the
delayed filling of the application, the learned Single
Judge, relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in
NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER1 had held that the
application filed for restoration was hopelessly belated.
6. Having considered the contentions raised by the
appellant and the grounds raised in the appeal, we are of
(2020) 14 SCC 232
NC: 2025:KHC:3310-DB
the opinion that the judgment requires no interference.
The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, IA.No.2/2022
does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
ABK
