[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr. M.K. Baladevkrishna vs Mr. Sachidananda Murthy on 23 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:11161-DB
W.A. No.978/2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.978/2023 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
MR. M.K. BALADEVKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
SON OF LATE MRS. SAROJAMMA
R/AT. HOSAMANE EXTENSION
SHIMOGA-577301.
Digitally signed by
ARSHIFA BAHAR
KHANAM ...APPELLANT
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADV., FOR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SRI. SUNDARA RAMAN M.V. ADV.,)
AND:
1. MR. SACHIDANANDA MURTHY
S/O LATE MR. A. HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
DHARMASHREE NILAYA
MISSION COMPOUND
BESIDE CHINMAYA HOSPITAL
KUVEMPU ROAD, SHIMOGA-577201.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
SHIMOGA-577201.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
SHIMOGA-577201.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:11161-DB
W.A. No.978/2023
HC-KAR
4. DR. H.R. RAJESHWARI DEVI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
D/O LATE MR. A. HANUMANTHAPPA
R/A VENLOCK HOSPITAL
MANGALORE-575001.
5. MRS. H. GEETHANJALI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
D/O LATE MR. A. HANUMANTHAPPA
R/A DHARMASHREE NILAYA
MISSION COMPOUND
BESIDE CHINMAYA HOSPITAL
KUVEMPU ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
6. MRS. H. RAJANI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
D/O LATE MR. A. HANUMANTHAPPA
R/A DHARMASHREE NILAYA
MISSION COMPOUND
BESIDE CHINMAYA HOSPITAL
KUVEMPU ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. GOPAL, ADV., FOR R1
SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, AGA FOR R2 & R3
R4 & R5 SERVED
R6 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS H/S V.C.O.DTD:02.02.2026)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 04/07/2023, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN WP NO.3497/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT
PETITION & ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 10.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:11161-DB
W.A. No.978/2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV 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 04.07.2023 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.3497/2022 (SC-ST).
2. Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Sri.Sundara Raman M.V., learned counsel for
the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has
failed to appreciate that Smt.Sarojamma, the grantee,
executed the Will dated 20.08.2001 bequeathing the
granted properties in favour of Sri.A.Hanumanthappa and
the execution of the Will was not within the knowledge of
the legal representatives of the grantee Smt.Sarojamma,
who died on 17.06.2002. It is further submitted that,
when appellant visited the land, he came to know that the
legal representatives of A.Hanumanthappa are in
NC: 2026:KHC:11161-DB
HC-KAR
possession, he filed an application for restoration of land.
The filing of an application for restoration of land by the
appellant is within the time from the date of knowledge.
The bequeathing of property in favour of
A.Hanumanthappa is not a transfer under the provisions of
The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for
short, 'PTCL Act'). It is further submitted that effecting
the revenue entries based on such a Will cannot be
construed as constructive notice to the appellant. Hence,
allowing of the writ petition of respondent No.1 by the
learned Single Judge is contrary to law and material
available on record as there is no time stipulated in
Section 5 of the PTCL Act for filing an application for
restoration. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.
3. Sri.R.Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.1 supports the impugned order of the
learned Single Judge and submits that immediately after
the death of testator, the name of A.Hanumanthappa was
NC: 2026:KHC:11161-DB
HC-KAR
entered in the revenue records and from the said date, the
appellant is aware about the execution of Will and also
aware that respondent No.1's father was in physical
possession of the property, such an aspect is required to
be construed as constructive notice of transfer of title in
favour of the father of respondent No.1 by the grantee. It
is submitted that the application filed seeking for
restoration of land does not indicate any reason for
enormous delay in filing such application. In support of his
contention, he placed reliance on the following decisions of
this Court:
i. Smt.Gouramma @ Gangamma vs. The Deputy
Commissioner and others1
ii. Smt.M.Manjula and others vs. The Deputy
Commissioner and others2.
Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
W.A.100101/2024 DD 29.07.2024
W.A.210/2023 DD 25.11.2024
NC: 2026:KHC:11161-DB
HC-KAR
4. We have heard the arguments advanced by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1,
learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for
respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the material
available on record. We have given our anxious
consideration to the submissions advanced on both the
sides.
5. The records indicate that the mother of the
appellant Smt.Sarojamma was granted land measuring 4
acres in Sy.No.81 (Old 59) of Guddada Arekere Village,
Shivamogga Taluk on 23.03.2000. The grantee
Smt.Sarojamma executed a will dated 20.08.2001
bequeathing the granted land in favour of
Sri.A.Hanumanthappa, the father of respondent No.1. The
grantee Smt.Sarojamma died on 17.06.2002. The records
further indicates that the father of respondent No.1 filed
an application before the jurisdictional Tahasildar to enter
his name in the revenue records based on the Will
NC: 2026:KHC:11161-DB
HC-KAR
executed by the grantee. The jurisdictional Tahasildar vide
order dated 22.11.2002 ordered to enter the name of the
father of respondent No.1 in the revenue records. The
records were mutated as per M.R.No.1/2002-03 and from
the said date the name of Sri.A.Hanumanthappa was
continued in the revenue records. After the death of
A.Hanumanthappa on 30.12.2011, the daughters of
A.Hanumanthappa executed registered relinquishment
deed in favour respondent No.1 relinquishing their right,
title and interest over the property vide registered
Relinquishment Deed dated 12.01.2012 and based on such
relinquishment deed, the jurisdictional Tahasildar passed
an order on 28.01.2017 in RRT Dispute No.41/2015-16
entering the name of respondent No.1 which is evident
from the record of rights produced by respondent No.1
along with statement of objections.
6. The appellant filed an application under Section
4 of the PTCL Act seeking for resumption of land on
23.06.2017 on the ground that the execution of the Will by
NC: 2026:KHC:11161-DB
HC-KAR
Smt.Sarojamma in favour of Sri.A.Hanumanthappa is in
contravention of PTCL Act. The respondent No.2 -
Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal vide order
dated 11.02.2020 by ordering that the Will and the
relinquishment deed are void as the transfer is without
prior permission as per Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act and
further ordered for resumption and restoration of land in
favour of the grantee.
7. Respondent No.1 assailed the order of
respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner before the
respondent No.3 - Deputy Commissioner on various
grounds which came to be dismissed. The Learned Single
Judge under the impugned order set aside the order of
respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the ground that the initiation
of proceedings by legal representatives of grantee is
beyond reasonable period.
8. It is not in dispute that the original grantee
Smt.Sarojamma bequeathed the granted land in favour of
NC: 2026:KHC:11161-DB
HC-KAR
Sri.A.Hanumanthappa under Will dated 20.08.2001 and
based on such Will, A.Hanumanthappa got the revenue
records mutated in his name in the revenue records as per
the order dated 22.11.2002 as per MR No.1/2002-03 and
the revenue records are standing in the name of
Sri.A.Hanumanthappa. The contention of the appellant is
that the acquisition of title by A.Hanumanthappa is not
transfer within the provisions of the PTCL Act has no merit.
9. It would be useful to refer to the decision of the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Shankargouda v Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad3,
wherein it was held as under:
"17. The Scheme of the Act as also the objects and
reasons for which it was introduced would indicate
that the objective is to prevent alienation of lands
granted to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
by Government. Such prevention cannot partake the
colour of testamentary disposition to a stranger other
than the family members in order to come out of the
rigour of Section 4 (2) of the Act.
18. The expression 'transfer' in Section 3 (1) (e) of
the Act has to be given a meaning as to promote the
object of the enactment. The deceased grantee can
WA.No.100348/2014 dtd 11.06.2020
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11161-DB
HC-KAR
transfer his rights only to the family members
through partition or testamentary disposition by
legitimate kinship. If the granted lands are
bequeathed to the strangers who may acquire a right
over the granted land in terms of the device under a
Will, it would certainly defeat the purpose and object
of the Act."
10. It is clear that the objective of the PTCL Act
would be defeated, if bequeathing a property vide a
testamentary disposition such a will is exempted from the
definition of 'transfer' of property as under Section
3(1)(e). Hence, the contention of the learned senior
counsel for the appellant that bequeathing a property vide
a Will not amount to transfer of property is required to be
rejected. It is to be noticed that the name of
Sri.A.Hanumanthappa was reflected in the RTC from
22.11.2002 and the revenue documents being the public
documents, the appellant cannot contend that he was
unaware of the acquisition of right by A.Hanumanthappa.
Under the law, it is deemed and understood that appellant
has constructive notice with regard to acquisition of right
and title over the granted land by A.Hanumanthappa once
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11161-DB
HC-KAR
his name is reflected in the revenue records. Further, it is
noticed that after the death of A.Hanumanthappa, two
daughters of A.Hanumanthappa executed a registered
relinquishment deed in favour of respondent No.1, son of
A.Hanumanthappa, and based on such relinquishment
deed, revenue records were again mutated in the name of
respondent No.1 as per the order dated 28.01.2017
passed by the Tahasildar. The appellant cannot contend
that he was unaware with regard to acquisition of right
and title of the property by A.Hanumanthappa and later by
his son viz., respondent No.1, in view of revenue records
standing in their name from 2002 onwards. Considering
the aforesaid aspect, we are of the considered view that
filing an application for resumption and restoration of land
on 23.06.2017 is beyond reasonable period. The appellant
in the application filed under Section 4 of the PTCL Act
does not provide any explanation for the delay
whatsoever. The other factor that goes against the
appellant is that the father of respondent No.1 as well as
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11161-DB
HC-KAR
respondent No.1 claim that they are in physical possession
of granted land from the date of death of original grantee
i.e., 17.06.2002, and the appellant cannot contend that he
came to know with regard to possession of respondent
No.1 over the granted land only when he visited the
property in the year 2017. Such an explanation cannot be
accepted.
11. The learned Single Judge considering the
contentions advanced and taking note of the fact that filing
of an application for restoration and resumption of land in
the year 2017 is after lapse of 15 years and by applying
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka
and antoher4 and Vivek M.Hinduja vs. M.Aswatha5 held
that the exercise of power by authority is beyond the
reasonable time and set aside the orders passed by
respondent Nos.2 and 3. We do not find any error or
(2020) 14 SCC 232
(2019) 1 Kant.LJ 819 SC
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11161-DB
HC-KAR
perversity in the order of the learned Single Judge calling
for interference in this appeal.
12. It is to be noticed that the coordinate bench of
this Court in the case of Smt.Gouramma @ Gangamma
referred supra has considered the effect of subsequent
amendment brought to the PTCL Act and held that there is
a marked difference between delay and laches and
emphasized on the conduct of the party during the said
delay. In the instant case, it is clear that the appellant has
failed to carry out due diligence and was negligent in
failing to approach the authority within a reasonable time.
The Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of
Smt.M.Manjula referred supra has considered the various
judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
held that delay and laches are required to be looked into
while considering the rights of the parties.
13. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find
any justifiable grounds to interfere with the order of the
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11161-DB
HC-KAR
learned Single Judge. The appeal is devoid of merits and
the same is accordingly, rejected.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
BSR
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 6
