Karnataka High Court

Sri A K Shivamurthy vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 November, 2025

                                         -1-
                                                  NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB
                                                       WA No. 957 of 2022


               HC-KAR



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                                       PRESENT
                      THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
                                         AND
                     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                         WRIT APPEAL NO. 957 OF 2022 (SCST)
               BETWEEN:

               1.    SRI A K SHIVAMURTHY
                     S/O A K RANGAPPA
                     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
                     RESIDENT OF DAGENAKATTE VILLAGE
                     CHANNAGERE TALUK
                     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.

               2.    SRI THIPPESH A K
                     S/O RANGAPPA A K
                     AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
                     RESIDENT OF DAGENAKATTE VILLAGE
                     CHANNAGERE TALUK
Digitally            DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577 001.
signed by                                                   ...APPELLANTS
RUPA V
               (BY SRI. SAGAR B B., ADVOCATE)
Location:
High Court     AND:
Of Karnataka

               1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                      REP. BY SECRETARY
                      REVENUE DEPARTMENT
                      M S BUILDING
                      BENGALURU 560 001.

               2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
                      DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
                      DAVANAGERE 577 001.
                              -2-
                                      NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB
                                        WA No. 957 of 2022


HC-KAR



3.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       DAVANAGERE SUB DIVISION
       DAVANAGERE 577 001.

4.     THE TAHASILDAR
       CHANNAGERE TALUK
       CHANNAGERE
       DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577 001.

5.     SRI SHIVALINGAPPA
       S/O NINGAPPA
       AGED MAJOR

6.     SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
       W/O DASHARATHAPPAA
       AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS

7.     SRI D BASAVARAJAPPA
       S/O DASHARATHAPPAA
       SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

7(a) SMT. UMA
     W/O LATE D BASAVARAJAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

7(b) SMT. SAHANA
     D/O LATE D BASAVARAJAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

7(c)   SAGAR
       S/O LATE D BASAVARAJAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

7(d) NAGARAJ
     S/O LATE D BASAVARAJAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS

8.     SRI D MANJAPPA
       S/O DASHARATHAPPAA
       AGE MAJOR
                            -3-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB
                                       WA No. 957 of 2022


HC-KAR




9.   SMT. VANI
     W/O B G JAGANNATH
     AGE MAJOR

     ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
     DAGINAKATTE VILLAGE
     CHANNAGERE TALUK
     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1-R4;
    SRI A NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R9;
    R6, R7(A TO D) & R8 ARE SERVED)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE ORDER
DATED 13TH SEPTEMBER 2022 IN WP No.1617/2020 (SC/ST)
AND ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND 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 appellants under Section 4

of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 challenging the

order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the learned Single

Judge in WP.No.1617/2020 (SC-ST).

NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB

HC-KAR

2. Sri.Sagar B.B, learned counsel appearing for

the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has

committed an error in dismissing 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 before the Assistant

Commissioner or before the Deputy Commissioner. It is

further submitted that the provisions of the Karnataka

Schedule Caste and Schedule 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

under the Act to file an application for restoration and

resumption. It is also submitted that the issue with regard

to the validity to the amendment brought to the Act is

under consideration before the learned Single Judge.

Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB

HC-KAR

3. Per contra, Sri.A.Nagarajappa, learned counsel

for respondent No.9 supports the order of the learned

Single Judge and submits that the Division Bench of this

Court has considered all the aspects and affirmed the

interference by the authority and the learned Single Judge,

if the delay in filing the application for restoration is

beyond a reasonable period. Hence, he seeks to dismiss

the appeal.

4. We have heard the arguments of the learned

counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for

respondent No.9 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

grandfather of the appellants i.e., Sri.Durgappa was

granted land in Sy.No.139 (old No.79/3) measuring 5

acres situated at Daginakatte Village, Channagiri Taluk,

Davanagere District vide order dated 20.05.1950. The

NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB

HC-KAR

grantee sold the subject land in favour of one

Sri.Shivalingappa vide registered sale deed dated

22.08.1957. Later, the said property was sold in favour of

Sri.Dasharathappa by the registered sale deed dated

12.04.1997. Thereafter, respondent No.7-

Sri.D.Basavarajappa purchased the same on 04.07.2011.

Admittedly, the legal heirs of the grantee filed an

application under Section 5 of the Act before the Assistant

Commissioner seeking for resumption and restoration of

the land. The said application came to be rejected which

was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. The initiation

of proceedings under Section 5 of the Act is in the year

2011 and considering the sale is of the year 1957, the

initiation of proceedings would me more than 54 years

from the first sale and 32 years from the date of

commencement of the Act. The learned Single Judge

considering the law on point affirmed the orders of the

Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner.

NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB

HC-KAR

We do not find any error in the finding recorded by the

learned Single Judge.

6. In view of the same, 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 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 considering the decisions of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra as well as the

decision in the case of Smt.Gouramma @ Gangamma v.

(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:44263-DB

HC-KAR

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 para 3(f), (g),

(h) and (i) held as under:

(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

W.A.No.100101/2024 dated 29.07.2024

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

NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB

HC-KAR

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

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB

HC-KAR

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 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. The contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant is that the amendment of the Act is pending

consideration, is answered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the

case of Gouramma referred supra.

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB

HC-KAR

8. In view of the preceding analysis, the

unexplained delay of more than 54 years and 32 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. The learned Single Judge has rightly