[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Chikkaiah Since Dead By Lrs H Ramu vs Smt Jayamma on 20 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3053-DB
WA No. 342 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 342 OF 2025 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
CHIKKAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
1. H RAMU
S/O. LATE CHIKKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
2. SMT. CHIKKAMMA
D/O LATE. CHIKKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
Digitally
signed by 3. C. RAMU,
AMBIKA H B S/O LATE CHIKKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
Location:
High Court 4. C. MUDALAGIRIYAPPA
of Karnataka S/O LATE CHIKKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
5. RAJU
S/O LATE CHIKKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
6. SMT. SARASWATHI
D/O LATE. CHIKKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:3053-DB
WA No. 342 of 2025
HC-KAR
7. SMT. SHANTHA
D/O LATE CHIKKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
APPELLANTS No.1 to 7 ALL ARE
RESIDING AT OLD NO.24
NEW NO.175, 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN
SRINIDHI LAYOUT
CHUNCHUGHATTA MAIN ROAD
KONANAKUNTE CROSS
BENGALURU - 560 062
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI GEORGE ANTHONY CRUZ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O LATE CHENNEGOWDA
@THAMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
R/AT BYLADAKERE VILLAGE
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 418
2. SHRI BALU
S/O LATE CHENNEGOWDA
@THAMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT BYLADAKERE VILLAGE
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 418
3. SHRI VIJAYA KUMAR
S/O LATE CHENNEGOWDA
@THAMMANNA
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
R/AT BYLADAKERE VILLAGE
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 418
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION
PANDAVAPURA
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 418
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:3053-DB
WA No. 342 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA - 571 418
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI SHARATH S. GOGI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1
SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R-4 & 5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE VIDE ORDER DATED 21.11.2024 IN W.P. No.4993/2015
(SC/ST) & ETC.
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. For the reasons stated in the application ‒ I.A No.1/2025,
the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
2. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning
an order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge
in Writ Petition No.4993/2015 (SCST). The said petition was
preferred by respondent Nos.1 and 2 impugning an order dated
09.12.2014.
NC: 2026:KHC:3053-DB
HC-KAR
3. The learned Single Judge found that the appeal filed
under Section 5A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act,
1978 [PTCL Act] was not competent. Accordingly, set aside the
order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority (the
Deputy Commissioner).
Prefatory facts
4. The appellants claim to be the legal heirs of Sri A.K.
Chikkaiah [the Grantee]. The Grantee was granted lands to the
extent of 4 acres situated at Survey No.85/1 in Yaladahalli
Village [ the subject land] on 03.08.1954.
5. The Grantee sold the subject land by a sale deed dated
10.09.1971 in favour of Chennegowda @ Thammanna (husband
of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2).
6. Proceedings were initiated by the appellants, claiming to
be the legal heirs of the Grantee, for resuming the subject land.
The said proceedings culminated in an order dated 09.03.1983,
passed by respondent No. 4 [Assistant Commissioner], refusing
to accede to the prayer for resumption of the subject lands. The
NC: 2026:KHC:3053-DB
HC-KAR
appellants' predecessors took no steps to challenge the
Assistant Commissioner's order for almost 27 years. Thereafter,
the appellants preferred an appeal before respondent No.5
[Deputy Commissioner], which was allowed in terms of the order
dated 14.06.2011.
7. Aggrieved by the same, the legal heirs of the purchaser of
the subject land (Chennegowda @ Thammanna), which was
conveyed by virtue of a sale deed dated 10.09.1971, preferred a
writ petition, being Writ Petition No.36080/2011. The said petition
was allowed by an order dated 13.02.2012, and the appeal was
restored before the Deputy Commissioner for deciding afresh.
The Deputy Commissioner allowed the said appeal by an order
dated 09.12.2014, whereby the delay in filing the appeal was
condoned, and the order dated 09.03.1983 passed by the
Assistant Commissioner was set aside.
8. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents Nos.1 to 3, being
the heirs of the purchaser of the subject land, filed a writ petition
(W.P.No.4993/2015), which was allowed in terms of the
impugned order.
NC: 2026:KHC:3053-DB
HC-KAR
9. One of the principal questions that fell for the court's
consideration was whether the delay of over 27 years would be
condoned. Apart from the question of the delay being for an
excessively long period, it was also contended that the appeal
before the Deputy Commissioner would be incompetent, as at
the material time, Section 5A of the PTCL Act was not on the
statute book.
10. It is relevant to refer to Section 5A of the PTCL Act. The
same is reproduced below:
"5A. Appeal to the Deputy Commissioner.- (1)
Any person aggrieved by an order passed after
the commencement of the Karnataka Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of
Transfer of Certain Lands) (Amendment) Act,
1984 by the Assistant Commissioner to take
possession of land under clause (a) of sub-section
(1) of section 5 or to restore the land under clause
(b) of the said sub-section may prefer an appeal
to the Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction
within a period of three months form the date on
which the order was communicated to him:
Provided that the Deputy Commissioner may
admit an appeal preferred against such order after
the period referred to in sub-section (1) if satisfied
that the appellant had sufficient cause for not
preferring the appeal within that period:
Provided further that the Deputy
Commissioner shall admit an appeal against an
NC: 2026:KHC:3053-DB
HC-KAR
order passed by the Assistant Commissioner
before the date of such commencement if, on the
said date, a writ petition preferred against such
order or an appeal preferred against the order
passed in such writ petition is pending in any
court.
(1A) Any person aggrieved by an order
passed after the commencement of the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands)
(Amendment) Act, 1992, by the Assistant
Commissioner under sub-section (1A) of section
5, may prefer an appeal to the Deputy
Commissioner having jurisdiction within a period
of three months form the date on which the order
was communicated to him:
Provided that the Deputy Commissioner may
admit an appeal preferred against such order after
the period referred to in sub-section (1A), if
satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for
not preferring the appeal within that period:
Provided further that the Deputy
Commissioner shall admit an appeal against an
order passed by the Assistant Commissioner
holding that transfer of any granted land is not null
and void before the date of such commencement,
if, on the said date, a writ petition preferred
against such order or an appeal preferred against
the order passed in such writ petition is pending in
any court.
(2) The Deputy Commissioner shall dispose of the
appeal in the prescribed manner and the order
passed by him shall be final"
NC: 2026:KHC:3053-DB
HC-KAR
11. Sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the PTCL Act expressly
provides that any person aggrieved by an order passed after the
commencement of the Karnataka SCST (Prohibition of Transfers
of Certain Lands) (Amendment) Act, 1984, under clause (b) of
Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the PTCL Act may prefer an
appeal only to the Deputy Commissioner. Thus, the appellate
remedy under Section 5A of the PTCL Act is confined only to the
orders that were passed after the said amending enactment
came into force.
12. In the present case, the order of the Assistant
Commissioner, which was the subject matter of appeal before
the Deputy Commissioner, was passed on 09.03.1983. This was
prior to the Karnataka SCST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain
Lands) (Amendment) Act, 1984, coming into force. Thus, the
appeal before the Deputy Commissioner was incompetent.
13. We find no infirmity with the decision of the learned Single
Judge allowing the writ petition on the ground that the order
dated 09.12.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner was
NC: 2026:KHC:3053-DB
HC-KAR
unsustainable, as it was passed in an appeal that was not
competent.
14. The learned counsel has also referred to the order dated
13.02.2012 in Writ Petition No. 36080/2011 (SC & ST), by which
the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner was restored. He
submits that the learned Single Judge had considered the issue
of the appeal being filed after a delay of 27 years, and had
remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for
consideration afresh. He submits that in view of the said order,
the delay of 27 years stood condoned. We find no merit in that
contention. The court had not condoned the delay as contended.
On the contrary, the court observed that the proceedings must
be initiated within a reasonable time, and a party cannot be
permitted to sleep over its rights for a considerable time before
approaching the authorities to set aside the sale deed.
Paragraphs 5 and 6 are relevant and are set out below:
"5. It is no doubt true a coordinate bench of
this Court has explained that the delay should
not be a fetter on the period inasmuch as the
jurisdiction of the original authority as well as the
Appellate Authority is co-extensive.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3053-DB
HC-KAR
Undoubtedly, it is so. But however, the Apex
Court has also observed that the proceedings
are required to be initiated within a reasonable
time. Indeed, the party cannot be allowed to
sleep over his rights for a considerable period of
time and then approach the authorities for
setting at naught the sale deed.
6. Indeed, in the case on hand the order was
passed by the original authority in the year 1983
and the appeal has been filed after 27 years.
Indeed, respondent No.1 cannot allow the
purchaser to believe that the said proceedings
have attained finality and after lapse of more
than quarter of century file an appeal.
Nevertheless, I am of the view that the said
application is to be considered once again by
the Appellate Authority. Indeed the Apex Court
in the case of Ningappa vs. Deputy
Commissioner and Others has observed that
the matter is required to be agitated at the
earliest. The Court would certainly come to the
aid of a litigant who is vigilant and not indolent."
15. After having observed as above, the learned Single Judge
had remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to
consider the application for condonation of delay and to examine
whether, in fact, a grant was made in favour of the Grantee.
Additionally, the Deputy Commissioner was directed to consider
whether the restriction on alienation of the subject land was for
15 or 20 years.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3053-DB
HC-KAR
16. Plainly, the order dated 13.02.2012 cannot be read as
condoning the 27-year delay in filing the appeal.
17. In terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the PTCL Act,
a person aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner may file an appeal within a period of three months
from the date of communication of the order. The Deputy
Commissioner is also empowered to admit an appeal preferred
beyond the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant has
sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within that period.
18. In the present case, the delay in filing the appeal is
enormous. Clearly, the appellants' claim that they were unaware
of the Assistant Commissioner's order cannot be accepted as a
credible explanation for the 27-year delay.
19. In our view, apart from the appeal before the Deputy
Commissioner being incompetent, it is also required to be
rejected as being highly delayed.
20. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order.
21. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3053-DB
HC-KAR
22. The pending interlocutory application also stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
AHB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7
