Karnataka High Court
Kariyappa vs K.S.Maralasiddamma on 18 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47426-DB
W.A. No.637/2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.637/2023 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
KARIYAPPA
S/O LATE KUNTA RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O BOKIKERE MAJURE, KASABA HOBLI
K K HATTI VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522.
Digitally signed
by RUPA V
...APPELLANT
Location: High
Court Of (BY SRI. TEJAS B.N. ADV.,)
Karnataka
AND:
1. K.S. MARALASIDDAMMA
W/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
OCC : AGRICULTURIST
R/O M.G. DIBBA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522.
2. K.N. YATHISH
S/O LATE K.S. NINGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
R/O M.G. DIBBA VILLAGE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47426-DB
W.A. No.637/2023
HC-KAR
KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522.
3. K.S. SOUBHAGYAMMA
W/O G.N. SHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
OCC. AGRICULTURIST
R/O M.G. DIBBA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DIST-577522.
4. S. BASAVARAJAPPA
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
OCC. AGRICULTURIST
R/O M.G. DIBBA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522.
5. S. DHANANJAYA
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
OCC. AGRICULTURIST
R/O M.G. DIBBA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522.
6. S. SHIVAMURTHY
LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
OCC. AGRICULTURIST
R/O M.G. DIBBA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522.
7. S. NAGARAJA
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
OCC. AGRICULTURIST
R/O M.G. DIBBA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURAGA TALUK
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:47426-DB
W.A. No.637/2023
HC-KAR
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522.
8. K.S. SHIVAPUTRAMMA
W/O SHIVASHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
OCC. AGRICULTURIST
R/O M.G. DIBBA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522.
9. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
CHITRADURGA-577501.
10. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
CHITRADURGA-577501.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.R. NAIK, ADV., FOR R2
SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R9 & R10)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING THAT THE ORDER DATED
19.03.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT
PETITION No.57900/2016 MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE, BY
ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL AND THE WRIT PETITION, WITH
COST THROUGHOUT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 14.11.2025, 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:47426-DB
W.A. No.637/2023
HC-KAR
CAV 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 19.03.2021 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.57900/2016 (SC/ST).
2. Sri.Shivaprasad T., learned counsel appearing
for the appellant 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 take note of the fact that the sale deed
executed is in violation of the grant conditions and solely
on the ground of delay, has proceeded to allow the writ
petition. It is further submitted that the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of
Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act')
is welfare legislation with a specific object to protect the
interests of the grantee and there is no limitation provided
NC: 2025:KHC:47426-DB
HC-KAR
under the Act to file an application for restoration and
resumption. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.
3. Per contra, Sri.N.R.Naik, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 supports the order of the learned Single
Judge and submits that the learned Single Judge, after
considering the material on record and the judicial
precedents, has held that the application filed before
respondent No.9 - Assistant Commissioner is after an
enormous delay of 26 years and the same cannot be held
to be reasonable in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the order of the
learned Single Judge 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 No.2 and meticulously perused the material
available on record. We have given our anxious
consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides.
NC: 2025:KHC:47426-DB
HC-KAR
5. The material on record indicates that the
grandfather of appellant i.e., Sri.Hanumappa, was granted
land in Sy.No.56/1 measuring 4 acres situated at Bokikere
Village, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District, vide grant
order dated 22.03.1955. The original grantee sold the
subject land in favour of one Smt.Shankaramma vide
registered sale deed 08.05.1961. Admittedly, the legal
heirs of the grantee filed an application under Section 5 of
the Act before respondent No.9 - Assistant Commissioner
on 01.03.2005 seeking for declaration that the sale
transaction dated 08.05.1961 is null and void, since the
sale transaction is in violation of the conditions imposed in
the grant. The said application came to be allowed, by
holding that the sale transaction was in violation of the
conditions of the grant and further directed resumption
and restoration of the land in favour of the legal heirs of
the original grantee. The order of the respondent No.9-
Assistant Commissioner was assailed before respondent
No.10 - Deputy Commissioner in an appeal, wherein the
NC: 2025:KHC:47426-DB
HC-KAR
order passed by respondent No.9 was upheld on the
grounds of violation of conditions of grant. The initiation of
proceedings under Section 5 of the Act is in the year 2005
and considering that the sale is of the year 1961, the
initiation of proceedings would be after more than 44
years from the sale and 26 years from the date of
commencement of the Act. The learned Single Judge,
considering the law on point, held that application filed
before respondent No.9 - Assistant Commissioner is after
an enormous delay, which cannot be termed to be
reasonable, and that the application is required to be
rejected solely on the ground of delay and laches. We do
not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned
Single Judge.
6. It would be useful to refer to the decisions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nekkanti
Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and Another1,
(2020) 14 SCC 232
NC: 2025:KHC:47426-DB
HC-KAR
Vivek M.Hinduja Vs. M.Aswatha2, Chhedi Lal Yadav
Vs. Hari Kishore Yadav3 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
v. Special Deputy Commissioner and Others5 and in
the case of Smt.M.Manjula and others vs. The Deputy
Commissioner, Benglauru and others6, considering the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra as
well as the decision in the case of Smt.Gouramma @
Gangamma v. Deputy Commissioner, Haveri and
Others7 held that the application seeking restoration
should be within a reasonable period of time. In the case
(2019) 1 Kant.L.J. 819 SC
(2018) 12 SCC 527
(2020) 14 SCC 236
2025 SCC OnLine Kar 6517
ILR 2024 KAR 4953
W.A.No.100101/2024 dated 29.07.2024
NC: 2025:KHC:47426-DB
HC-KAR
of Gouramma referred supra, the Co-ordinate Bench at
para 3(f), (g), (h) and (i) held as under:
3.(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.Murugesan8 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
(2022) 2 SCC 25
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47426-DB
HC-KAR
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
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47426-DB
HC-KAR
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
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.
7. In view of the preceding analysis, the
unexplained delay of more than 44 years from the date of
sale deed and 26 years from the Act coming into force in
filing an application under Section 5 of the Act for
resumption and restoration of the land cannot be termed
as a reasonable time. The learned Single Judge has rightly
considered that there is an inordinate delay and dismissed
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47426-DB
HC-KAR
the writ petition, which does not call for any interference.
Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly,
the same is rejected.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
BSR/ABK
