Karnataka High Court
Smt. Ratnamma vs State Of Karnataka on 25 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:42361-DB
WA No. 1193 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1193 OF 2023 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RATNAMMA
W/O H.M. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
R/AT BIDARAHALLI,
BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE,
BAGALORE-560049.
2. SRI. SHAKUNTHALAMMA
W/O NAGARAJU D
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT 228, 5TH CROSS, JAKKUR LAYOUT,
JAKKUR, BANGALORE-560064.
Digitally 3. SMT. GOWRAMMA
signed by D/O ANJINAPPA,
RUPA V AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
Location: R/AT BIDARAHALLI,
High Court
Of BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE,
Karnataka BANGALORE-560049.
4. SMT. ASHA.M
W/O BALAJI M
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO.40, OIL MILL ROAD,
SAIT PALYA KACARKANAHALLI,
ST. THOMAS TOWN,
BANGALORE-560084.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRADEEP H S., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:42361-DB
WA No. 1193 of 2023
HC-KAR
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIDHANA SODUHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560001
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU SUB DIVISION,
BENGALURU-560001.
4. SRI. K.N.KRISHNA REDDY
S/O LATE NANJAPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
R/ATNO. 41/9, 13TH CROSS,
6TH D MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560038.
5. SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE MUNISWAMY REDDY,
MAJOR,
6. SRI NARAYANA REDDY
S/O LATE DODDAMUNISWAMY REDDY,
MAJOR.
7. SMT. MEENAKSHAMMA
D/O LATE DODD MUNISWAMY REDDY,
MAJOR.
8. SRI VASUDEVA REDDY
S/O LATE DODDAMUNISWAMY REDDY,
MAJOR.
9. SRI. KODANDARAMREDDY
S/O LATE DODDAMUNISWAMY REDDY,
MAJOR.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:42361-DB
WA No. 1193 of 2023
HC-KAR
10. SRI. SOMASHEKHARA REDDY
S/O LATE DODDAMUNISWAMY REDDY,
MAJOR.
11. SRI GURU REDDY
S/O LATE DODDAMUNISWAMY REDDY,
MAJOR.
12. SMT MANJULA
D/O LATE DODDAMUNISWAMY REDDY,
MAJOR.
13. SMT KANTHAMMA
D/O LATE DODDAMUNISWAMY REDDY
MAJOR.
14. SRI. GOPAL REDDY
S/O CHIKKATHAYAPPA
MAJOR.
15. SRI. LOKESH @ LOKESH REDDY
S/O GOPALA REDDY
MAJOR,
RESPONDENTS NOS. 14 & 15 ARE
R/AT CHELLAKERE VILLAGE RING ROAD,
KALYAN NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560043.
16. SMT. H. KAVITHA
W/O H.D.BALAKRISHNEGOWDA,
R/AT NO. 12, 80 FEET ROAD,
PADMANABHA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560070.
17. JAYALAKSHMI
W/O RAMANJINAPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT NO. 424, 18TH CROSS
CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA LAYOUT
AMRUTHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 092.
18. NETHRAVATHI
D/O RAMANJINAPA
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:42361-DB
WA No. 1193 of 2023
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT NO. 44, THIRUMALA TEMPLE ROAD
YADIYURU, BAGALURU
BENGALURU-562 149.
19. ANITHA R
D/O RAMANJINAPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT NO. 192, OVER TANK ROAD
HOSAHALLI, HUNASAMARANAHALLI
BENGALURU-562 157.
20. ANNAPURNA R
D/O RAMANJINAPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO. 193, 1ST MAIN
RAMAMANDIR MAIN ROAD
NEAR WATER TANK, HUNASAMARANAHALLI
BENGALURU-562 157.
21. ARPITHA R
D/O RAMANJINAPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT NO. 424, 18TH CROSS
CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA LAYOUT
AMRUTHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 092.
22. NIVEDITHA R @ ANJALI
D/O RAMANJINAPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT NO. 424, 18TH CROSS
CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA LAYOUT
AMRUTHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 092.
(NOTE: THE RESPONDENTS NO. 17 TO 22 ARE THE LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE'S OF RESPONDENTS NO.4 IN W.P WHO
WAS DEMISED ON 20.07.2020)
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
01.08.2019 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
No. 50366/2018 (SC-ST) AND ETC.,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:42361-DB
WA No. 1193 of 2023
HC-KAR
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 under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated
01.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.50366/2018.
2. Sri.Pradeep H.S., learned counsel appearing for
the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has
committed a grave error in appreciating the fact and the
law. It is submitted that the Karnataka Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain
Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') does
not stipulate any time limit for filing an application for
restoration of land. It is further submitted that the
application is filed for restoration of land as the sale by the
NC: 2025:KHC:42361-DB
HC-KAR
original grantee is without his knowledge with regard to
the bar of alienation, and the said aspect has not been
considered by the learned Single Judge. Hence, he seeks
to allow the appeal.
3. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellant and meticulously perused the
material available on record. We have given our anxious
consideration to the submissions made.
4. The present appeal is filed along with an
IA.No.1/2023 seeking for condonation of delay of 762 days
in filing an appeal. The appellants also filed an application
seeking permission to prosecute the appeal on the ground
that the appellants are the sisters of Sri.Ramanjinappa,
respondent No.4 in the writ proceedings and respondent
No.4 has not participated in the writ proceedings. Hence,
sought to prosecute this appeal.
5. The records indicate that the land in question
was originally granted in favour Sri.Anjinappa on
NC: 2025:KHC:42361-DB
HC-KAR
30.04.1969 and he sold the said property on 28.09.1970.
The legal heirs of the original grantee filed an application
for restoration of the land in their favour under Section 5
of the Act. Admittedly, the initiation of proceedings by the
legal heirs of the grantee is beyond 30 years and
considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case 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, the learned Single
Judge held that the order of restoration passed by the
respondent No.2 is beyond reasonable period and
proceeded to set aside the impugned order and allowed
the writ petition. We do not find any error or perversity in
the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge calling for
interference in this appeal.
(2020) 14 SCC 232
(2019) 1 Kant.L.J. 819 SC
(2018) 12 SCC 527
(2020) 14 SCC 236
NC: 2025:KHC:42361-DB
HC-KAR
6. We have perused the application seeking
condonation of delay, the appellants have not shown
sufficient cause to condone the delay of 762 days in filing
the appeal. Hence, even on the ground of delay, the
appeal is liable to be rejected. For the aforementioned
reasons, IA for condonation of delay is rejected as well as
the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly,
dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
ABK
