[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Chandra vs The Deputy Commissioner on 3 February, 2026

                                        -1-
                                                  NC: 2026:KHC:6035-DB
                                                  WA No. 1531 of 2025


             HC-KAR




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 3RD 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. 1531 OF 2025 (SC-ST)

            BETWEEN:
            1.   CHANDRA
                 S/O THIMMAIAH
                 AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
                 R/AT MUTHURAYANAPURA VILLAGE
                 HAROHALLI HOBLI
                 HAROHALLI TALUK
                 PREVIOUSLY KANAKAPURA TALUK
                 KARNATAKA - 562 112
                                                  ...APPELLANT
            (BY SRI SHRIDHAR NARAYAN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
AMBIKA H B AND:
Location:    1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
High Court      RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
of Karnataka
                 DISTRICT OFFICE COMPLEX
                 B.M. ROAD
                 RAMANAGARA - 562 159

            2.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
                 RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION MAGISTRATE
                 DISTRICT OFFICE COMPLEX
                 B.M. ROAD
                 RAMANAGARA - 562 159
                            -2-
                                      NC: 2026:KHC:6035-DB
                                      WA No. 1531 of 2025


 HC-KAR




3.   THE TAHSILDAR
     KANAKAPURA TALUK
     DODDABETTAHALLI
     KARNATAKA - 562 117

4.   SHIVANNA
     S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

5.   DUDEGOWDA
     S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

6.   NAGARAJU
     S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

     ALL ARE RESIDING AT
     BHEEMASANDRA DHOODI VILLAGE
     MALARVADI HOBLI
     HAROHALLI TALUK
     PREVIOUSLY KANAKAPURA TALUK
     RAMANAGARA DIST - 562 121
                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO 3)

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT
PETITION NO.11467/2020 DATED 11/12/2020 & ETC.

      THIS   APPEAL,   COMING    ON   FOR   PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
                                 -3-
                                            NC: 2026:KHC:6035-DB
                                            WA No. 1531 of 2025


 HC-KAR




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 appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an

order dated 11.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this

Court in Writ Petition No.11467/2020 (SC-ST).

2. The appellant has filed an application seeking condonation

of a delay of 1261 days in filing the present appeal, supported by

an affidavit. The only explanation provided by the appellant for the

inordinate delay of almost four years is that the advocate engaged

by him had not informed him regarding the dismissal of the petition.

The appellant also states that in the year 2022-2023, his mother,

who was aged about 83 years, had fractured her leg and the

appellant had taken her to an Ayurvedic doctor in Tamil Nadu,

where she was treated. It is stated that he was regularly taking her

for such treatment. Additionally, he states that his father was

hospitalised in the year 2024 and subsequently, expired in the

month of November 2024. The appellant states that he was upset

and could not concentrate on any work thereafter. However, he

NC: 2026:KHC:6035-DB

HC-KAR

contacted his advocate in the month of July 2025 and was informed

regarding dismissal of his petition. The present appeal was filed on

11.09.2025.

3. In our view, the appellant's explanation does not provide

sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated period.

4. We are unable to accept the explanation that the advocate

for the appellant did not inform the appellant regarding dismissal of

the petition. Plainly, the appellant was also required to keep himself

informed of the progress of his case. It is difficult to accept that the

appellant can absolve himself of his inaction for almost four years

to find out the fate of his petition.

5. We, accordingly, reject the appellant's application for

condonation of delay. In view of the above, it is not necessary to

examine the merits of the case. However, we have examined the

merits as well, and find no merit in the appeal.

6. The dispute relates to land bearing Sy. No. 48/P5 measuring

2 acres situated at Linganapura Village, Maralvadi Hobli,

Kanakapura Taluk (now Harohalli Taluk), Ramanagara District [the

subject land']. The subject land was granted to one Pangala

NC: 2026:KHC:6035-DB

HC-KAR

Thimmaiah [the original grantee], the grandfather of the appellant,

on 18.07.1960 and it is stated that this grant was made in respect

of persons belonging to the depressed class (SC-ST). The

Saguvali Chit was issued in the year 1960.

7. After the demise of the original grantee, his daughters,

namely Rangamma and Venkatamma came into possession of the

subject land. The legal heirs of the original grantee sold the subject

land to one Puttegowda, the father of respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6

herein, vide a registered sale deed dated 16.09.1994 .

8. The appellant, claiming to be the grandson of the original

grantee, filed an application on 29.01.2007 before respondent No.2

- Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara Sub-Division under

Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act,

1978 [PTCL Act], seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated

16.09.1994 and restoration of the subject land in his favour. The

said case was registered as Case No.PTCL(K)/02/2008-09.

9. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 30.11.2009,

allowed the application filed by the appellant, holding that the

NC: 2026:KHC:6035-DB

HC-KAR

alienation of the subject land was in violation of Section 4(2) of the

PTCL Act. Consequently, the sale deed dated 16.09.1994 was

cancelled and the subject land was ordered to be restored to the

heirs of the original grantee.

10. Aggrieved by the said order, Sri Puttegowda (father of

respondent Nos. 4 to 6) preferred an appeal before respondent

No.1 - Deputy Commissioner in Case No. LND/SC/ST/A/25/2009-

10. The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 12.07.2018,

dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Assistant Commissioner's

order, holding that the sale was effected without the Government's

prior permission, in violation of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act.

11. Puttegowda expired on 13.03.2019. Thereafter, his legal

heirs, respondent Nos. 4 to 6 herein, being aggrieved by the orders

of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, filed

Writ Petition No. 11467/2020 (SC-ST) before this Court.

12. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dated

11.12.2020, allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders

passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 30.11.2009 and the

Deputy Commissioner dated 12.07.2018. The learned Single

NC: 2026:KHC:6035-DB

HC-KAR

Judge, placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this

Court in Smt. Ningamma vs. The Tibetian Children's Village and

others in W.A. No.4092/2017 decided on 09.04.2019, held that the

application for restoration was filed by the appellant after an

inordinate delay of fourteen years (the sale having been effected

on 16.09.1994 and the application for restoration having been filed

on 29.01.2007). The learned Single Judge observed that in the

case of Ningamma (supra), the Division Bench had considered the

delay of twelve years and set aside the restoration order; since the

delay in the present case was fourteen years, the application for

restoration was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay alone.

13. In Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and

another: 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1862, the Supreme Court set

aside the restoration order, noting a delay of 25 years.

14. Section 5 of the PTCL Act was subsequently amended by

Karnataka Act No. 30 of 2023, whereby Clauses (c) and (d) were

inserted in sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act with effect from

27.07.2023. Clause (c) provides that notwithstanding anything

contained in any law, there shall be no limitation of time to invoke

the provisions of the PTCL Act. Clause (d) provides that the

NC: 2026:KHC:6035-DB

HC-KAR

provisions of Clause (c) shall apply to all cases pending before all

competent authorities and all Courts of Law adjudicating cases

under this section.

15. The import of the said amendment was considered by the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Gouramma alias

Gangamma vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Haveri: NC:

2024:KHC-D:10666-DB 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 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.

(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 &

NC: 2026:KHC:6035-DB

HC-KAR

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.

(g) There is a marked difference between 'delay & laches' that operate in equity and 'limitation & delay' that obtain in law."

16. The Special Leave Petition preferred against the decision of

this Court in Smt.Gouramma (supra), being SLP (C) Diary

No.19020/2025, was dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order

dated 09.05.2025, which reads as under:

"Delay condoned.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s). We see no merit in this case which calls for our interference, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed along with pending application(s), if any."

17. Similarly, in Smt.M.Manjula and others vs. The Deputy

Commissioner and others: NC:2024:KHC:51015-DB, the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court, after considering the amendment to

Section 5 of the PTCL Act and the decision in Smt. Gouramma

(supra), held as under:

"5.2 Though the principles governing overlap, the delay and laches has the facet in equity. Delay is the

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6035-DB

HC-KAR

genus to which the laches and acquiescence are species. The jurisprudential concepts of delay, laches and acquiescence have their own colour and connotation and conceptually often different from crossing the period of limitation prescribed in the statutory provision. Limitation binds the litigant in terms of initiating a legal action or filing any proceedings. Laches concedes an element of culpability in allowing time to pass by in commencing the action in law.

6. In light of the above discussion and the position of law that would emerge, in the facts of the case, the restoration of the land cannot be permitted after 12 years. The question of latches would come into play. 12 years having been passed, it would be highly unreasonable, unjust and inequitable, as well as against law to grant any relief to the original grantee- the petitioner-appellant, permitting restoration of the land and to treat the transfer of the land taken place long back to be null and void."

18. The Special Leave Petition preferred against the decision of

this Court in Smt.M.Manjula (supra), being SLP (C) No.8421/2025,

was also dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order dated

01.04.2025, wherein the Supreme Court observed as under:

"Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners. We see absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed along with pending application(s), if any."

19. In the present case, the subject land was sold on

16.09.1994, and the application for restoration was filed on

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6035-DB

HC-KAR

29.01.2007, that is, after a delay of more than 12 years. The

appellant has not provided any satisfactory explanation for this

inordinate delay. As held in Smt.Gouramma (supra) and

Smt.M.Manjula (supra), an application for restoration filed after

such an unreasonably long period was not liable to be entertained.

21. In view of the above, we find no infirmity with the decision

of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the application for