[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Virupanna Nayak Alias Veerupanna S/O. ... vs The Deputy Commissioner on 8 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:156-DB
WA No. 100159 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100159 OF 2024 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
VIRUPANNA NAYAK @ VEERUPANNA
S/O. PARAMESHWARAPPA NAYAK,
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED CONSTABLE
IN CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE
IN 2011, R/O. GUNDAMMA CAMP,
GANGAVATHI, TQ. GANGAVATHI,
DIST. KOPPAL, KOPPAL-583 231.
PRESENTLY R/O. 25TH WARD,
BEHIND OLD CTO OFFICE,
HOSALLI ROAD, TQ. GANGAVATHI,
DIST. KOPPAL, GANGAVATHI-583 227.
... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. VIDYAVATI M. KOTTURSHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR
Digitally
signed by
SMT. YASHASHWINI AWARADI AND
VN
VN BADIGER
BADIGER Date:
SMT. SHRADDHA C. YELAMAGGAD, ADVOCATES)
2026.01.12
10:41:30
+0530
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL,
DIST. KOPPAL-583 231.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL,
DIST. KOPPAL-583 231.
3. THE TAHASILDAR, GANGAVATHI,
TQ. GANGAVATHI,
DIST. KOPPAL-583 231.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:156-DB
WA No. 100159 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, GANGAVATHI,
TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583 231.
5. SAYYED ALI S/O. SYYED RUPSAB,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. PINJAR ONI, NEAR POLICE STATION,
GANGAVATHI, TQ. GANGAVATHI,
DIST. KOPPAL-583 231.
6. THE CHRISTIAN WELFARE SOCIETY, BETHAL,
METHODIST CHURCH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
ISAK IRANNA S/O. GARUDAYYA,
AGE. MAJOR, R/O. VEERUPAPURA VILLAGE,
TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583 231.
7. PUTTA VENKATASUBBAYYA
S/O. P. SUBBAYYA, AGE. MAJOR
R/O. PLOT NO.1304, FORTUNE TOWER,
MADAPUR VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPALLI,
HYDERABAD-500 019.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5 (IN CP
NO.21619/24);
SRI J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SYED SARDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
SRI U.G. KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.04.2024 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.102047/2024 AND ALLOW
THIS WRIT APPEAL WITH CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF/S AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:156-DB
WA No. 100159 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN)
1. Aggrieved by the order passed in W.P. No.102047/2024,
the petitioner therein has preferred the present writ appeal.
2. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled
Tribe community. The father of the petitioner was granted the
land in question in the year 1982. Thereafter, the said land was
sold in favour of Respondent No.5 by virtue of two registered
sale deeds executed in the years 2000 and 2001.
3. The purchaser got the land converted in the year 2009.
However, it is contended that he violated the terms and
conditions of the conversion order and did not develop the land
as required. Instead, after a lapse of two years from the date of
the conversion order, he managed to obtain the necessary
sanctioned plan for development of a layout. Thereafter, the land
was sold to Respondent No. 7 in the year 2014.
4. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application before the
jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner seeking to set aside the
NC: 2026:KHC-D:156-DB
HC-KAR
said sale deeds. After few rounds of litigation, the application
filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner preferred a writ petition, which also came to
be dismissed with cost. Aggrieved by the said order, the present
writ appeal has been filed.
5. The arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner are
two fold. Firstly, it is contended that the sale in favour of
respondent No. 5 was effected without obtaining the necessary
permission from the competent authority and, therefore, the sale
is liable to be cancelled. Secondly, it is contended that
respondent No. 5 further alienated the land in favour of
respondent No. 7 in violation of the provisions of law.
6. Per contra, the respondents justify the order passed in the
writ petition and pray for dismissal of the writ appeal.
7. It is not in dispute that the land was granted in favour of
the petitioner's father in the year 1982 and that the same was
alienated in the years 2000 and 2001. It is also evident that the
appellant questioned the said alienation only in the year 2016,
i.e., after an inordinate delay.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:156-DB
HC-KAR
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi V/s.
State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232
has held that persons similarly situated as that of the appellant
are required to approach the competent authority within a
reasonable time and that, in cases of inordinate delay, such
claims cannot be entertained.
9. Admittedly, though the land was alienated after a lapse of
nearly 15 years from the date of grant and without obtaining
prior permission from the competent authority, the appellant
approached the authorities seeking to set aside the sale only
after an unreasonable and unexplained delay. The beneficial
legislation enacted to protect members of the Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe communities is intended to prevent
exploitation of innocent persons and not to enable misuse of the
statute to unsettle long-settled transactions.
10. Under the present circumstances, the claim made by the
appellant is clearly vitiated by inordinate delay, and we do not
find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:156-DB
HC-KAR
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ appeal is hereby
dismissed.
12. In view of the dismissal of the writ appeal, pending
applications, if any, do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
VB
CT:BCK
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 4
