Karnataka High Court

Mr. N Narasimha Murthy vs Deputy Commissioner on 10 November, 2025

                                           -1-
                                                   NC: 2025:KHC:45751-DB
                                                     W.A. No.1474/2023


              HC-KAR



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                       DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
                                         PRESENT
                       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
                                          AND
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                           WRIT APPEAL NO.1474/2023 (SC-ST)


             BETWEEN:

             MR. N. NARASIMHA MURTHY
             S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
             AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
             R/OF DURGIDEVI STREET
             VIJAYAPURA TOWN
Digitally
signed by    DEVANAHALLI TALUK
RUPA V       BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
Location:                                                     ...APPELLANT
High Court
Of           (BY SRI. GUBBI SWAMY S, ADV.,)
Karnataka
             AND:

             1.   DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
                  BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
                  BENGALURU 562114.

             2.   ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
                  DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION
                  DODDABALLAPURA 561203.

             3.   SHRI. MUNIKRISHNAPPA
                  S/O LATE APPAJAPPA
                  AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.

             4.   SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA
                  W/O MUNIKRIGHNAPPA
                  AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

                  BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF
                  BETTAHALLI VILLAGE
                              -2-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC:45751-DB
                                         W.A. No.1474/2023


HC-KAR



    SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562114

                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 & R2
     SRI. B.G. NANJUNDARADHYA, ADV., FOR R3 & R4)

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN W.P
No.24062/2021 (SC-ST).      SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
29.05.2023, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT
PETITION No.24062/2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION & ETC.

      THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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 29.05.2023 passed by the learned Single

Judge in W.P.No.24062/2021 (SC-ST).

2. Sri.Gubbi Swamy S., learned counsel appearing

for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge

has committed an error in dismissing the writ petition

without appreciating the material available on record in its

NC: 2025:KHC:45751-DB

HC-KAR

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.

3. Per contra, Sri.B.G.Nanjundaradhya, 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 all the aspects and held

that if there is any unreasonable delay in filing an

NC: 2025:KHC:45751-DB

HC-KAR

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 dismissed 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 legal

heirs of the original grantee initiated proceedings under

Section 5 of the Act. The records further indicate that the

land was originally granted to Dabba Chinnappa on

30.11.1959 and saguvali chit came to be issued on

02.06.1961. The grantee alienated the property in

question on 21.03.1967 and thereafter, number of

NC: 2025:KHC:45751-DB

HC-KAR

transfers have taken place between the parties to the

proceedings. The legal heirs of the original grantee

initiated proceedings under Section 5 of the Act for

resumption and restoration of the land in their favour.

The Assistant Commissioner, vide order dated 09.06.2017

allowed the application for restoration which was reversed

by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 11.03.2020

which was challenged by the appellant. The learned Single

Judge dismissed the writ petition.

6. Admittedly, the initiation of proceedings under

Section 5 of the Act is in the years 2008 and 2009 and

considering the sale which has taken place in the year

1967, the initiation of proceedings would be more than 41

years 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

NC: 2025:KHC:45751-DB

HC-KAR

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 @

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-

(2020) 14 SCC 232

(2019) 1 Kant.L.J. 819 SC

(2018) 12 SCC 527

(2020) 14 SCC 236

2025 SCC OnLine Kar 6517

W.A.No.100101/2024 dated 29.07.2024

NC: 2025:KHC:45751-DB

HC-KAR

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:

"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

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

NC: 2025:KHC:45751-DB

HC-KAR

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 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

NC: 2025:KHC:45751-DB

HC-KAR

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 application for

restoration filed after more than 4 decades of sale. The

issue with regard to the amendment to 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 41 years in filing an

application under Section 5 of the Act for resumption and

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45751-DB