Karnataka High Court
Shri. Thimmaiah vs The Deputy Commissioner on 24 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48477-DB
W.A. No.984/2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.984/2023 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. THIMMAIAH
S/O LATE CHIKKA HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
C/O R. LOKESH REDDY
S/O S. RAMAIAH REDDY
Digitally signed KONANAKUNTE CROSS
by ARSHIFA KANAKAPURA ROAD
BAHAR KHANAM
BANGALORE - 560062.
Location: High
Court Of ...APPELLANT
Karnataka (BY SRI. SUDHAKAR G.V. ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
BANGALORE - 560009.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION
BENGALURU - 560009.
SHRI. C.V. REDDY
S/O LATE SHRI. NARAYANA REDDY
RESIDING AT NO.796
12TH A CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD
2ND PHASE, J P NAGAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48477-DB
W.A. No.984/2023
HC-KAR
BENGALURU - 560078
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
3. SHRI. RYAN RAGHU ALLEN
S/O SHRI. REDDY V. ALLEN
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.
4. SHRI. RHEA PRIYANKA ALLEN
D/O SHRI. REDDY V. ALLEN
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.
BOTH RESPONDENT NOS.3 & 4 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.22
SHORT HILLS, BLVD
JACKSON -08527, UDA.
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
SMT. SOUNDARYA RAGHU
D/O LATE C.V. REDDY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.796, 12TH B CROSS
2ND PHASE, 2ND MAIN ROAD
J P NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560078.
SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O CHIKKA HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
5. SHRI. VENKATESH
S/O CHIKKA HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
6. SMT. RATHNAMMA
D/O CHIKKA HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
BOTH RESPONDENT NOS.5 & 6 ARE
RESIDING AT NO C/O
R. LOKESH REDDY
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48477-DB
W.A. No.984/2023
HC-KAR
S/O S. RAMAIAH REDDY
KONANAKUNTE CROSS
KANAKAPURA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560062.
7. SMT. N. SHAILAJA
W/O SHRI V.N. MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
NO.140/5, 18TH MAIN
5TH PHASE, J P NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 078.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.N. NANJA REDDY, ADV., FOR C/R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS.
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 13/04/2023
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN W.P. NO.40737/2012 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS
THE WRIT PETITION IN WP NO.40737/2012 & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL 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 13.04.2023 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.40737/2012 (SC-ST).
NC: 2025:KHC:48477-DB
HC-KAR
2. Sri.Sudhakar G.V., 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 there was no
opportunity to explain the delay either before the Assistant
Commissioner or before the Deputy Commissioner. 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
interests of the grantee and there is no limitation provided
under the Act to file an application for restoration and
resumption. It is also submitted that the issue with regard
to validity of the amendment brought to the Act is under
consideration before the learned Single Judge. Hence, he
seeks to allow the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:48477-DB
HC-KAR
3. Per contra, Sri.P.N.Nanja Reddy, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 supports the order of
the learned Single Judge and submits that the Division
Bench of this Court has considered similar matters and
held that if there is any unreasonable delay in filing an
application for restoration, the same is liable to be
rejected. The learned Single Judge considered all the
aspects including the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and allowed the writ petition which 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 Nos.3 and 4 and meticulously perused the
material available on record. We have given our anxious
consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides.
5. The material on record indicates that the
appellant is the son of original grantee Sri.Chikka
Hanumaiah. The land measuring 4 acres in Sy.No.113/1,
new Sy.No.174 of Uttari Village, Uttarahalli Hobli,
NC: 2025:KHC:48477-DB
HC-KAR
Bengaluru South Taluk was granted in favour of Sri.Chikka
Hanumaiah on 09.10.1956. The records indicate that the
grantee sold the property in favour of Sri.K.Channappa on
02.01.1987 without prior approval from the State
Government. The records further indicate that the
appellant filed an application under Section 5 of the Act
before the Assistant Commissioner for restoration and
resumption of land in the year 2006-2007. Admittedly, the
filing of application for restoration is more than 19 years.
The Assistant Commissioner, vide order dated 09.01.2009
allowed the application for restoration. The purchasers
assailed the order before the Deputy Commissioner and
the appeal came to be dismissed on 13.08.2012. The
purchasers challenged the aforesaid orders before the
learned Single Judge which came to be allowed.
6. Admittedly, the initiation of proceedings under
Section 5 of the Act is in the years 2006 and 2007 and
considering the sale which has taken place on 02.01.1987,
the initiation of proceedings would be more than 19 years
NC: 2025:KHC:48477-DB
HC-KAR
from the first sale. We do not find any error in the finding
recorded by the learned Single Judge calling for
interference in this appeal.
7. 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, 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 @
(2020) 14 SCC 232
(2019) 1 Kant.L.J. 819 SC
(2018) 12 SCC 527
(2020) 14 SCC 236
2025 SCC OnLine Kar 6517
NC: 2025:KHC:48477-DB
HC-KAR
GANGAMMA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI
AND OTHERS6 held that the application seeking
restoration should be within a reasonable period of time.
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:
W.A.No.100101/2024 dated 29.07.2024
(2022) 2 SCC 25 at Para 20,21 & 22
NC: 2025:KHC:48477-DB
HC-KAR
"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 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
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48477-DB
HC-KAR
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
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."
8. The contention that the amendment of the Act
is pending consideration before the learned Single Judge
cannot be a ground to entertain the appeal. The filing of
application for restoration is more than 19 years from the
date of sale. The issue with regard to the amendment to
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48477-DB
HC-KAR
the Act is considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case
of GOURAMMA, referred supra.
9. In view of the preceding analysis, the
unexplained delay of more than 19 years in filing an
application under Section 5 of the Act for resumption and
restoration of the land cannot be termed as a reasonable
time. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned
Single Judge has rightly considered that there is an
inordinate delay and has allowed the writ petition by
setting aside the impugned orders, which does not call for
any interference in this intra Court appeal.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit and is
accordingly rejected.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
