[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Madamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 8 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:1005-DB
W.A. No.805/2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.805/2023 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MADAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S.
1(A) SRI. BASAVAIAH
S/O LATE KONTHA MADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
1(B) SMT. KANTHAMMA
Digitally signed by W/O LATE MAHADEVA
ARSHIFA BAHAR
KHANAM AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
Location: High
Court Of 1(C) SRI. HARISHA
Karnataka S/O LATE MAHADEVA
AGED BOUT 33 YEARS.
1(D) SRI. K. NAGAIAH
S/O LATE KONTHA MADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
APPELLANT NO.1(A) TO 1(D) ARE
R/AT. YASHODHAPURA VILLAGE
HANAGODU HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571105.
2. SRI. K. GOVINDA
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:1005-DB
W.A. No.805/2023
HC-KAR
2(A) SMT. NAGAMMA
W/O LATE K. GOVINDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
2(B) SRI. G. SUNDARA
S/O LATE K. GOVINDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
2(C) SRI. G. MANJU
S/O LATE K. GOVINDA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
APPELLANT NO.2(A) TO 2(C) ARE
R/AT. YASHODHAPURA VILLAGE
HANAGODU HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571105.
3. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O LATE K. MAHADEVA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
4. SUMA .B
D/O BASAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
APPELLANT NO.3 AND 4 ARE
R/AT YASHODHAPURA VILLAGE
HANAGODU HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571105.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRASAD HEGDE K.B. ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT
MYSURU-570001.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:1005-DB
W.A. No.805/2023
HC-KAR
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HUNSUR SUB-DIVISION, HUNSUR
MYSURU DISTRICT-570001.
3. SRI. SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O NIRVANAIAH.
4. SMT. SUSHEELA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
W/O SWAMY.
RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4 ARE
R/AT. KALLAHALLI VILLAGE
HANAGODU HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571105.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 & R2
SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADV., FOR R3 & R4)
-------
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN WP No.36576/2018 (SC-ST) DATED 08.06.2023 BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND DISMISS THE WRIT
PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 06.01.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:1005-DB
W.A. No.805/2023
HC-KAR
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 08.06.2023 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.36576/2018 (SC/ST).
2. Sri. Prasad Hegde K.B., learned counsel
appearing for the appellants submits that the learned
Single Judge has committed an error in allowing the writ
petition without appreciating the material available on
record in its proper perspective. It is submitted that the
learned Single Judge has failed to take note of the fact
that the sale deed executed is in violation of the grant
conditions and solely on the ground of delay, has
proceeded to allow the writ petition. It is further submitted
that the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for
short 'the Act') is a welfare legislation with a specific
object to protect the interests of the grantee and there is
NC: 2026:KHC:1005-DB
HC-KAR
no limitation provided under the Act to file an application
for restoration and resumption. Hence, he seeks to allow
the appeal.
3. Per contra, Sri.P.Nataraju, learned counsel
appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 supports the order
of the learned Single Judge and submits that the learned
Single Judge, after considering the material on record and
the judicial precedents, has held that the application filed
before the respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner is
after an enormous delay of 8 years 11 months and 8 years
1 month from their respective sale deeds and the same
cannot be held to be reasonable in view of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the order
of the learned Single Judge does not call for any
interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
4. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for
respondent No.3 and 4 and meticulously perused the
NC: 2026:KHC:1005-DB
HC-KAR
material available on record. We have given our anxious
consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides.
5. The material on record indicates that one
Sri.Kontha Madaiah, was granted land in Sy.No.37/B (New
No.155) measuring 4 acres situated at Thamadahalli
Village, Hanagodu Hobli, Hunsur Taluk, Mysore District,
for an upset price vide grant order dated 31.07.1976 with
a condition to not alienate the land for a period of 15
years. The appellants herein who are the legal heirs of the
original grantee sold a portion of the land vide sale deed
dated 20.02.2004 and rest of the portion of the land vide
sale deed dated 18.01.2005. The appellants later filed an
application before the respondent No.2 seeking restoration
and resumption of the lands. The respondent No.2 vide
order dated 27.04.2015 allowed the same and ordered for
restoration and resumption. The said order was challenged
before the respondent No.1 and the same came to be
dismissed vide order dated 04.07.2017. The orders passed
by the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 were
NC: 2026:KHC:1005-DB
HC-KAR
assailed before the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.36576/2018. The learned Single Judge, on
considering the material on record and placing reliance on
the relevant judicial precedents, allowed the writ petition
and passed the impugned order. The learned Single Judge
held that the application for restoration and resumption of
lands was filed after a delay of 8 years 11 months and 8
year 1 month from the execution of the respective sale
deeds and the said delay, in view of the law laid down
cannot be termed to be within a reasonable time. We do
not find any error in the said finding recorded by the
learned Single Judge.
6. It would be useful to refer to the decisions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of NEKKANTI
RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
ANOTHER1, VIVEK M.HINDUJA VS. M.ASWATHA2,
CHHEDI LAL YADAV VS. HARI KISHORE YADAV3 and
(2020) 14 SCC 232
(2019) 1 Kant.L.J. 819 SC
(2018) 12 SCC 527
NC: 2026:KHC:1005-DB
HC-KAR
NINGAPPA VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
OTHERS4 wherein it was held that the application for
resumption or restoration cannot be entertained beyond a
reasonable period. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of
SRI.KESHAVAMURTHY AND ANOTHER V. SPECIAL
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS5 and in the
case of SMT.M.MANJULA AND OTHERS VS. THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGLAURU AND
OTHERS6, considering the decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court referred supra as well as the decision in
the case of SMT.GOURAMMA @ GANGAMMA V.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI AND OTHERS7 held
that the application seeking restoration should be within a
reasonable period of time. In the case of Gouramma
referred supra, the Co-ordinate Bench at para 3(f), (g),
(h) and (i) held as under:
"3.(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
(2020) 14 SCC 236
2025 SCC OnLine Kar 6517
ILR 2024 KAR 4953
W.A.No.100101/2024 dated 29.07.2024
NC: 2026:KHC:1005-DB
HC-KAR
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
repleat 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. The following
observations of the Apex Court in Union of India
Vs. N.Murugesan8 make out this point:
"Delay, laches and acquiescence
20. The principles governing delay, laches,
and acquiescence are overlapping and
interconnected on many occasions.
However, they have their distinct characters
and distinct elements. One can say that
delay is the genus to which laches and
acquiescence are species. Similarly, laches
might be called a genus to a species by
name acquiescence. However, there may be
a case where acquiescence is involved, but
not laches. These principles are common
law principles, and perhaps one could
identify that these principles find place in
various statutes which restrict the period of
limitation and create nonconsideration of
(2022) 2 SCC 25 at Para 20,21 & 22
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1005-DB
HC-KAR
condonation in certain circumstances.... The
underlying principle governing these
concepts would be one of estoppel. The
question of prejudice is also an important
issue to be taken note of by the court.
Laches.
21. The word "laches" is derived from the
French language meaning "remissness and
slackness". It thus involves unreasonable
delay or negligence in pursuing a claim
involving an equitable relief while causing
prejudice to the other party. It is neglect on
the part of a party to do an act which law
requires while asserting a right, and
therefore, must stand in the way of the
party getting relief or remedy.
22. Two essential factors to be seen are the
length of the delay and the nature of acts
done during the interval. As stated, it would
also involve acquiescence on the part of the
party approaching the court apart from the
change in position in the interregnum.
Therefore, it would be unjustifiable for a
Court of Equity to confer a remedy on a
party who knocks its doors when his acts
would indicate a waiver of such a right. By
his conduct, he has put the other party in a
particular position, and therefore, it would
be unreasonable to facilitate a challenge
before the court. Thus, a man responsible
for his conduct on equity is not expected to
be allowed to avail a remedy."
(h) We are told at the Bar that the subject
Amendment has been put in challenge in
W.P.No.27496/2023 and that, matter is pending
consideration. We make it clear that construction
of a statute is one thing and its validity is another.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1005-DB
HC-KAR
We do not want to say even a word about the
validity, that is being examined by the learned
Single Judge before whom the matter is pending.
We have only placed our interpretation on the
amended provisions of the Act and nothing
beyond.
(i) Before parting with this case, we are
constrained to observe that, legislative process is
not simple and easy. It has to be undertaken with
a lot of care, caution & expertise. Law speaks
through language. If language is not properly
employed what is said is not what is meant; if
what is said is not what is meant, what needs to
be done remains undone or misdone. A linguistic
defect thus may defeat the intent of legislation.
More is not necessary to specify."
7. In view of the preceding analysis, the
unexplained delay of more than 8 years 11 months and 8
years 1 month from the date of the respective sale deeds
in filing an application under Section 5 of the Act for
resumption and restoration of the lands cannot be termed
to be within a reasonable time. The learned Single Judge
has rightly considered that there is an inordinate delay and
dismissed the writ petition, which does not call for any
interference.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1005-DB
HC-KAR
8. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merits and
accordingly, the same is rejected.
It is needless to observe that the aforesaid findings
would not come in the way of the appellant adjudicating
his rights independently, if any, in accordance with law.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
