- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2942-DB WA No. 115 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT APPEAL NO. 115 OF 2024 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SONNAMMA, W/O NARAYANAPPA , AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 2. SRI. C.N. AMBAREESH, S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 3. SMT. C.N RATHNAMMA, D/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 4. SMT. C.N ANITHA, D/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 5. SMT NAGAMANI, D/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT: CHINNAPURA VILLAGE, VAKKALERI HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 137 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. DASAPPA B, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2942-DB WA No. 115 of 2024 AND: 1. SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA, S/O LATE HANUMAPPA , AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS , R/AT: NO.17, CHOWDESHWARI NILAYA, LAKE ROAD, BYRASANDRA, C.V RAMAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 093 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE , REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY , M.S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI , BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB DIVISION, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04/07/2023 MADE IN WP NO.24416/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2942-DB WA No. 115 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr. B. Dasappa for the appellants and learned Government advocate Mr. K.S.Harish for the respondents-the State and its authorities. 2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.07.2023 of learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition came to be allowed. 3. The original petitioner was the heir-son of the purchaser of the land. The challenge before learned Single Judge was against the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, whereby restoration of the land was ordered in favour of the original grantee under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act, 1978). 3.1. The land bearing Sy.No.14 measuring 1 Acre situated at Chinnapura village, Vakkaleri Hobli, Kolar Taluka, came to be granted in favour of one Narayanappa S/o Byrappa - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2942-DB WA No. 115 of 2024 who is the husband of respondent No.4. The grant was on 02.02.1980. The original grantee sold the land in favour of the father of the petitioner by way of registered sale deed dated 17.08.1995. 3.2. After the death of the original grantee, respondent Nos.4 to 8 in the writ petition, who are the heirs, filed an application under the Act, 1978 seeking restoration of land in their favour on the ground that there was a breach of provisions of the Act, 1978. 4. Such application was filed in the year 2014. It was after a long delay of 18 years. 5. The ground of delay was a valid ground on which the authorities ought not to have restored the land in favour of the grantee and the application could not have been considered as per the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in SMT. M. MANJULA AND OTHERS Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS, which was Writ Appeal No.210 of 2023. The discussion and the reasons supplied in the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2942-DB WA No. 115 of 2024 said decision more particularly in paragraphs 4 to 5.2 thereof and shall be treated as part of this order in this case. 6. Additionally, learned Single Judge has noted that the land was granted under a grant certificate under Form No.1. It was thus a title of document in favour of the grantee. Thus, the provisions of the Act were not applicable. In this regard, learned Single Judge was entirely justified in relying on the decision of the Apex Court in B.K.MUNIRAJ VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2008) 4 SCC 451. The land was found to have been purchased in the public auction. 6.1. On both the counts, therefore, learned Single Judge was justified in arriving at a conclusion to allow the writ petition to set aside the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. 6.2. No error could be booked in the judgment and order of learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is merit less and is dismissed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2942-DB WA No. 115 of 2024 In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory applications, as may be pending, would not survive and they stand accordingly disposed of. SD/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 102