[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ramanna vs State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10444-DB
WA No. 938 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 938 OF 2023 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAMANNA
SON OF LATE SRI. NIRAGANTI KODAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YERS,
SANTHEPETE, SIRA TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572137
2. SMT. RAMAKKA
DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI. KARIYA NAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
SANTHEPETE, SIRA TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572137
Digitally
signed by 3. SMT. KANTHAMMA
NIRMALA
DEVI DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI. KARIYA NAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
Location:
HIGH SANTHEPETE, SIRA TOWN,
COURT OF TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572137
KARNATAKA
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PARASHURAM, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PARASHURAM A L, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10444-DB
WA No. 938 of 2023
HC-KAR
MULTI-STOREYED BUILDING
DR. AMBEDAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572101
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION
MADHUGIRI,
TUMKURU DISTRICT572101
4. THE TAHSILDAR
SIRA TALUK, SIRA
TUMKURU DISTRICT 572101
5. SMT. MUDDUNAGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
W/O. LATE SRI. S.H. NAGARAJU,
R/AT ARASINAKERE-AMARAPURA
ROAD, PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 561 202
6. SMT. MAMATHA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
D/O. LATE SRI. S. H. NAGARAJU,
W/O SRI. THIPPESWAMY,
R/AT MUDDUSHREE NILAYA,
JYOTHINAGARA,
BEHIND NALLAMBA HOTEL,
SIRA TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 137
7. SRI. S. N. CHANDAN
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SRI. S.H. NAGARAJU,
R/AT ARASINAKERE-
AMARAPURA ROAD,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:10444-DB
WA No. 938 of 2023
HC-KAR
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 561 202
8. SRI. S.N. PAVAN
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SRI. S.H. NAGARAJU,
R/AT ARASINAKERE-
AMARAPURA ROAD,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 561 202
9. SRI. S. N. GAGAN
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SRI. S.H. NAGARAJU,
R/AT ARASINAKERE-
AMARAPURA ROAD,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 561 202
10. SMT. SUMITHRA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
W/O LATE. SRI. H. SHANTHARAJU,
R/AT AMRUTHAVARASHINI,
SAPTHAGIRI EXTENSION,
SIRA TOWN,
TUMAKURU DSITRICT - 572 137.
11. SRI. S. KIRAN
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI. H. SHANTHARAJU,
R/AT AMRUTHAVARSHINI,
SAPTHAGIRI EXTENSION,
SIRA TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 137.
12. SRI. S. ARUN
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI. H. SHANTHARAJU,
R/AT AMRUTHAVARSHINI,
SAPTHAGIRI EXTENSION,
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:10444-DB
WA No. 938 of 2023
HC-KAR
SIRA TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 137.
13. SRI. S. DARSHAN
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI. H. SHANTHARAJU,
R/AT AMRUTHAVARSHINI,
SAPTHAGIRI EXTENSION,
SIRA TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 137.
14. SRI. S.H. NATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI.T. HANUMANTHAPPA,
R/AT NO. 619, 4TH CROSS,
5TH MAIN, PARIMALANAGARA,
NANDINI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 096.
15. SRI. H. LAKSHMINARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
S/O LATE. SRI.T.HANUMANTHAPPA,
R/AT SRIRANGA, JYOTHINAGAR,
NEAR KOLLAPURADAMMA
TEMPLE,SIRA TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 137.
16. SRI. H. S. LOKESH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI.T. HANUMANTHAPPA,
R/AT NO.64, 1ST BM MAIN,
2ND CROSS, PIPELINE,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B G, AGA FOR R1 TO R4
SRI. VARUN PAPIREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R15)
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:10444-DB
WA No. 938 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER OF THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 12/07/2023 IN WP
NO.23013/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS WRIT
PETITION NO.23013/2022 FILED BY RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO
16/PETITIONERS
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 appellants have filed the present appeal impugning
an order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition No. 23013 of 2022 (SCST). The private respondents
have filed the said petition impugning the order dated 17.01.2018,
passed by the Assistant Commissioner, and the order dated
21.10.2022, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru
District, directing the restoration of the subject land. The learned
Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that the
proceedings for restoration of the subject land had been instituted
after an inordinate delay of 48 years.
NC: 2026:KHC:10444-DB
HC-KAR
2. The appellants state that the land measuring 6 acres
falling in Sy.No.90/1 (new Sy.No.90/2, presently renumbered as
Sy.No.90/3) of Kallukote village of Shira Taluk [the subject land],
was granted in favour of Sri Madalur Nayaka [the original grantee]
on 27.03.1944 under the Grow More Food scheme [GMF Scheme]
for a period of five years from 1944-45 to 1948-49. Thereafter, the
State Government, by an order dated 16.11.1961, confirmed and
granted the subject land in favour of Smt. Kempamma, the widow
of the original grantee.
3. One Sri Karinayaka, the son of the original grantee sold
the subject land under the registered sale deed dated 07.11.1966
to one Sri Hanumanthappa, who is the ancestor of respondent
Nos.5 to 16.
4. The appellants claim to be the descendants of the original
grantee. They filed an application before the Assistant
Commissioner on 18.02.2015 seeking resumption of the land on
the ground that its alienation was in violation of the provisions of
the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [PTCL Act].
The Assistant Commissioner allowed the said application by an
NC: 2026:KHC:10444-DB
HC-KAR
order dated 17.01.2018 and declared that the alienation in favour of
respondent Nos.5 to 16 was void. The said respondents preferred
an appeal before the District Commissioner, which was rejected by
an Order dated 21.10.2022.
5. It is apparent from the above that the proceedings for
restoration were commenced about 48 years after the subject land
was alienated. In Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi V/s State of
Karnataka1 as well as Vivek M. Hinduja and Others Vs. M.
Aswatha2, the Supreme Court held that the applications for
restoration of the subject land after an inordinate delay were not
maintainable. The provisions of Section 5(1) of the PTCL Act were
subsequently amended by the introduction of clauses (c) and (d),
by virtue of Act No.30 of 2023. The import of the said amendment
came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Smt.
Gouramma @ Gangamma Vs. The Deputy Commissioner and
others3 and the Court observed as under:
"(d) The Amendment Act that is made applicable with
retrospective effect is only a duplication of the existing
legal position. Such duplication happened even in
English legislative history, hardly needs to be
mentioned. The question of delay is a matter of
(2020) 14 SCC 232
2019 Kar.LJ 819 (SC)
KHC-D:10666-DB
NC: 2026:KHC:10444-DB
HC-KAR
limitation which this statute is silent about. Clauses (c)
and (d), now introduced to Section 5(1) of the Act, do
not bring any change in the statutory scheme. At the
most, they are declaratory of what the statute has been
all through, so far as the limitation period is concerned.
Nobody disputes that there was no limitation period
earlier and there is no limitation period now too. Laches,
which would involve a host of factors, pertains to the
Domain of Equity.
(e) Nekkanti supra does not speak of "limitation period"
at all. What it discusses is, the long lapse of time
between alienation of granted land and the filing of claim
for its resumption. Observations occurring in para 8 of
the decision lend support to this view:
"8. However, the question that arises is with regard to
terms of Section 5 of the Act which enables any
interested person to make an application for having the
transfer annulled as void under Section 4 of the Act.
This Section does not prescribe any period within which
such an application can be made. Neither does it
prescribe the period within which suo motu action may
be taken. This Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav v.
Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs., (2017) 6 Scale 459
and also in the case of Ningappa v. Dy. Commissioner
(C.A. No. 3131 of 2007, decided on 14.07.2011)
reiterated a settled position in law that whether Statute
provided for a period of limitation, provisions of the
Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. It is
held that action whether on an application of the parties,
or suo motu, must be taken within a reasonable time.
This relief was granted to the farmers due to flood in the
Kosi River which make agricultural operations
impossible. An application for restoration was made
after 24 years and was allowed. It is in that background
that this Court upheld that it was unreasonable to do so.
We have no hesitation in upholding that the present
application for restoration of land made by respondent-
Rajappa was made after an unreasonably long period
and was liable to be dismissed on that ground.
NC: 2026:KHC:10444-DB
HC-KAR
Accordingly, the judgments of the Karnataka High Court,
namely, R. Rudrappa v. Deputy Commissioner, (2000) 1
Karnataka Law Journal, 523, Maddurappa v. State of
Karnataka, (2006) 4 Karnataka Law Journal, 303 and G.
Maregouda v. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga
District, Chitradurga, (2000) 2 Kr. L.J.Sh. N.4B holding
that there is no limitation provided by Section 5 of the
Act and, therefore, an application can be made at any
time, are overruled. ....."
(emphasis is ours)
Apparently, the law declared by the Apex Court in
the above case has not been altered by the subject
amendment, even in the least.
(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 replete 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."
6. In the present case, the delay of almost half a century is
extraordinarily excessive. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has
rightly held that the subject land could not be restored. We find no
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10444-DB
HC-KAR
grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed.
7. All pending applications are also disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
Vmb
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21
