Karnataka High Court
Smt Ningamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 23 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:41702-DB
WA No. 1481 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1481 OF 2024 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT NINGAMMA
W/O. LATE KALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
2. SRI. SIDDARAJU
S/O. LATE KALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
3. SRI. RAMESH
S/O. LATE KALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
Digitally 4. SRI. SHIVANNA
signed by S/O. LATE KALAIAH,
NIRMALA
DEVI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
Location:
HIGH COURT 5. SRI. NAGARAJU
OF S/O. LATE KALAIAH,
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
6. SRI. KUMARA
S/O. LATE KALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O. MYDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
ILAWALA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:41702-DB
WA No. 1481 of 2024
HC-KAR
MYSORE DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY MS. ASHWINI O, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSORE DISTRICT,
MYSORE.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MYSORE SUB-DIVISION,
MYSORE.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
MYSORE TALUK,
MYSORE.
4. SRI. N. BALAKRISHNA @ BALAKRISHNA MASTI
S/O. NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/O. NO. 223, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU.
5. SMT. N. NAGARATHNA
W/O. S. BOJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
NO. 6, BLOCK NO. 16,
B.E.M.L. LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE,
SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE.
6. SRI. KEMPAIAH
S/O. LATE KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
7. SRI. CHIKKAHAIDAIAH
S/O. LATE KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
8. SRI. MARIYAIAH
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:41702-DB
WA No. 1481 of 2024
HC-KAR
S/O. LATE KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
9. SRI. LAKSHMAIAH
S/O. LATE KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS No.6 TO 9 ARE
R/O. MYDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
ILAWALA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT.
10. SRI. M. L. KANTHARAJE URS
S/O. M. S. LAKSHMIKANTHARAJE URS,
R/O. NO. CH-47, DIWANS ROAD,
LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND
JUDGEMENT OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
NO.8407/2020 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT DATED
12/07/2021 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The present appeal is being filed after an inordinate delay of
915 days. The application seeking condonation of delay does not
NC: 2025:KHC:41702-DB
HC-KAR
set out particulars which would explain the said inordinate delay.
The appellants have merely stated that they had approached the
High Court's Legal Services Committee and the Advocate
appointed, took considerable time to study and analyze the law and
the case on the subject matter. Thereafter, the counsel provided a
legal opinion that it was a fit case to be filed before the High Court.
Thereafter, the appellants took time to travel from their hometown
to meet and brief the advocate assigned to them.
2. As noted above, the affidavit is completely silent as to when
the appellants had approached the Legal Services Committee; on
what date the advocate was assigned to examine their case; when
did she/they render a legal opinion and when did they travel from
their hometown to arrange for the advocate to represent them.
3. In the present case, the appellants seek resumption of land
measuring 5.0 acre which is granted to the father-in-law of
appellant No.1 and grandfather of appellant Nos.2 to 6 on
07.03.1940. The original grantee had expired and thereafter his
widow sold the land to the extent of 2 acres and 32 guntas in
favour of the ancestors of respondent No.5 to 8 vide registered
Sale Deed which was executed on 25.01.1960. Thereafter, 25
NC: 2025:KHC:41702-DB
HC-KAR
years later i.e. on 30.08.1985, she along with her son sold further
land measuring 2 acres and 26 guntas by a registered Sale Deed.
More than 26 years have elapsed. The grandchildren of the original
grantee filed an application for annulling the Sale Deed that were
executed on 25.01.1960 and 30.08.1985. Their application was
rejected on 04.08.2014. They filed an appeal before the Deputy
Commissioner [Case No. PTCL-08/2014-15] which was rejected.
Thereafter, the appellants filed a writ petition being
W.P.No.8407/2020 [SC/ST] which was dismissed on 12.07.2021 in
terms of the impugned order. Learned Single Judge had referred to
the decision of the Supreme Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi
Vs. State of Karnataka and another; (2020) 14 SCC 232 and
Vivek M. Hinduja Vs. M. Aswatha; (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC.
4. It does not appear that the appellants had taken any steps to
challenge the said decision thereafter. However, on 27.07.2023,
The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) [Amendment] Act, 2023,
came into force and the appellants thereafter sought to resurrect
their challenge by filing a review petition [being R.P. No.362/2024]
NC: 2025:KHC:41702-DB
HC-KAR
praying that the impugned judgment be reviewed. The said review
petition was dismissed on 31.08.2024.
5. It is apparent that the present appeal has been filed after an
inordinate delay only on the basis of a subsequent statutory
amendment.
6. We find that the appellants are unable to explain the delay in
filing the present appeal. The appellants are also unable to
establish any sufficient cause that prevented them from filing the
appeal within time.
7. Hence, the application for seeking condonation of delay is
accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as
well.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
