- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3310-DB W.A. No.52/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.52/2022 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: BYRAPPA S/O LATE CHOWDAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT. CHIKKAGUBBI VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU 560 049. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. D.C. THIMMARAYAPPA, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU - 560001. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SUB DIVISION BENGALURU - 560001. 4. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE DODDA MUNISWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3310-DB W.A. No.52/2022 5. NARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE DODDA MUNISWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 6. MEENAKSHAMMA W/O LATE DODDA MUNISWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 7. VASUDEVA REDDY S/O LATE DODDA MUNISWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 8. KODANDARAM REDDY S/O LATE DODDA MUNISWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 9. SOMASHEKAR REDDY S/O LATE DODDA MUNISWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 10. GURU REDDY S/O LATE DODDA MUNISWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 11. MANJULA W/O LATE DODDA MUNISWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 12. KANTHAMMA D/O LATE DODDA MUNISWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 4 TO 12 ARE R/AT. MARAGONDANAHALLI BIDARAHALLI HOBLI THAMBUCHETTY PALYA BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 036. 13. AKKAYAMMA W/O LATE SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 14. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY S/O LATE SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3310-DB W.A. No.52/2022 15. RAMESH REDDY S/O LATE SRINIVAS REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. 16. NAGARAJA REDDY S/O LATE SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. 17. SURENDRA REDDY S/O LATE DODDA MUNISWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 13 TO 17 ARE R/AT. CHELLAKERE VILLAGE KALYAN NAGAR POST BANGALORE-560043. 18. H. KAVITHA W/O H.D. BALAKRISHNEGOWDA NO.12, 80 FEET ROAD PADMANABHA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 070. 19. K.N. KRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE NANJAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT. NO.41/9, 13TH CROSS 6TH D MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE BANGALORE-560038. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DEVARA C.H. GOVT., ADV., FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.50370/2018 DATED 1.8.2019. PASS ANY OTHER ORDER/S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3310-DB W.A. No.52/2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal is filed by respondent No.5 in the writ petition filed by respondent No.19 herein. The writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs: "i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District bearing No.SC ST(A)39/2013-14 dated 06.06.2018 (Produced as Annexure "A"); and /or ii) Issue such other further Writs, Orders or Directions, as this Hon'ble Court deems it necessary to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed on the ground that the application filed for restoration of land under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3310-DB W.A. No.52/2022 and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act') was highly belated. It is submitted that the factual aspects of the matter has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. 4. However, we notice from the facts of record that the original grant was dated 30.04.1969. Thereafter, the first sale had admittedly occurred on 28.09.1970. Thereafter, two more sales have occurred and finally the writ petitioner had acquired the property by registered sale deed dated 25.08.2006. The learned Single Judge has clearly noticed that it was only in the year 2010-11 that the application for restoration of the land under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed by the appellant herein and that the orders were passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 01.04.2013 dismissing the said application. On appeal filed by the grantee, the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 06.06.2018 had allowed the appeal, which was under challenge in the writ petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3310-DB W.A. No.52/2022 5. The learned Single Judge considered the contentions of the parties and found that the order passed on 06.06.2018 by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal could not be sustained for the simple reason that after coming into force of the PTCL Act on 01.01.1979, the grantee had taken absolutely no steps to seek restoration of the land for 30 long years. It was only in the year 2010- 11 that the application for restoration had been filled. Since absolutely no reasons were forthcoming for the delayed filling of the application, the learned Single Judge, relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER1 had held that the application filed for restoration was hopelessly belated. 6. Having considered the contentions raised by the appellant and the grounds raised in the appeal, we are of 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3310-DB W.A. No.52/2022 the opinion that the judgment requires no interference. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, IA.No.2/2022 does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4