- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16765-DB WA No. 896 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 896 OF 2023 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: MR. MUNISWAMAPPA, S/O LATE BUDDAPPA, DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE MR. NARAYANASWAMY, S/O LATE SUBBARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT DODDATHAGGALI VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. AJIT P B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, V.V. TOWERS, PODIUM BLOCK, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16765-DB WA No. 896 of 2023 NOW SHIFTED TO ADDRESS AT DISTRICT OFFICE COMPLEX, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, TUBUGERE VILLAGE DODDABALLAPURA - 561 203, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 4. MRS. ASHRAFUNNISA, W/O. LATE BABAJAN, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, 5. MR. NASIR HUSSAIN, S/O LATE BABAJAN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 6. MR. SHOUKATH PASHA S/O. LATE BABAJAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R4 TO 45 ARE R/AT KATTIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. 7. MR. C.N.NARAYANASWAMY S/O. NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT CHANNAGANAHALLI BILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK - 560049. 8. MR. NARAYANASWAMY S/O. THAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/AT NO. 63, 2ND CROSS, BAZAR STREET, NEELASANDRA, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16765-DB WA No. 896 of 2023 BANGALORE - 560 047. 9. MRS. K.N. BHAGYALAKSHMI, W/O SRI. RAVIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT C/O. SRI. K.N.NARAYANA RAO, V.V.LAYOUT, GANGAMMA GUDI BEEDI, HOSAKOTE TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. 10. MRS. K.N. GIRIJA, D/O. SRI. K.N. NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT V.V.LAYOUT, GANGAMMA GUDI BEEDI, HOSAKOTE TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13TH FEBRUARY 2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 18516-517 OF 2013 (SC-ST) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED IN PTCL.SR(Ho) - 8/2006- 07, DATED 27.06.2008 BY THE LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION THE RESPONDENT No. 3 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, IN LND SC ST (A) 64/2008-09, DATED 09.10.2012 AND LND SC ST (A) 75/2008-09, DATED 20.04.2010 BY THE RESPONDENT No. 2 HEREIN, ETC. I.A. No-1/2023 IS FILED BY THE ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT U/S 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT PRAYING TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 517 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16765-DB WA No. 896 of 2023 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) The challenge in this intra-court appeal is to an order dated 13.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.18516-517/2013, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by respondents No.9 and 10 herein by stating in paragraphs No.7 and 8 as under: “7. It is not in dispute that the land bearing old Sy. No.1/P35, New No.86 measuring 1 acre 39 guntas situated at Alugondanahalli Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk was granted in favour of Muniswamappa under Land Grant Rules on 01.06.1966. The said Muniswamappa has inturn sold the land in favour of one Baba Jan, who is father of respondent Nos.5 to 7 on 25.10.1982. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The original grantee has filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner for resumption of the land in the year 2006. The - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16765-DB WA No. 896 of 2023 application is filed after lapse of more than 24 years from the date of sale. There is an inordinate delay in filing the application. The application filed by original grantee itself is not maintainable. This view is fortified by the Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra), at paragraph No.8 has held as under: "However, the question that arises is with regard to terms of Section 5 of the Act which enables any interested person to make an application for having the transfer annulled as void under Section 4 of the Act. This Section does not prescribe any period within which such an application can be made. Neither does it prescribe the period within which suo motu action may be taken. This Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav & Ors. vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors., 2017(6) SCALE 459 and also in the case of Ningappa vs. Dy. Commissioner & Ors. (C.A. No. 3131 of 2007, decided on 14.07.2011) reiterated a settled position in law that whether Statute provided for a period of limitation, provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. It is held that action whether on an application of the parties, or suo motu, must be taken within a reasonable time. That action arose under the provisions of a similar Act which provided for restoration of certain lands to farmers which were sold for arrears of rent or from which they were ejected for arrears of land from 1st January, 1939 to 31st - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16765-DB WA No. 896 of 2023 December, 1950. This relief was granted to the farmers due to flood in the Kosi River which make agricultural operations impossible. An application for restoration was made after 24 years and was allowed. It is in that background that this Court upheld that it was unreasonable to do so. We have no hesitation in upholding that the present application for restoration of land made by respondent-Rajappa was made after an unreasonably long period and was liable to be dismissed on that ground. Accordingly, the judgments of the Karnataka High Court, namely, R. Rudrappa vs. Deputy Commissioner, 2000 (1) Karnataka Law Journal, 523, Maddurappa vs. State of Karnataka, 2006 (4) Karnataka Law Journal, 303 and G. Maregouda vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga and Ors, 2000(2) Kr. L.J.Sh. N.4B holding that there is no limitation provided by Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, an application can be made at any time, are overruled. Order accordingly." 8. It is very clear from the above judgment of the Apex Court that the application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for resumption of the land has to be filed within a reasonable time. In the case on hand, the original grantee has filed the application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for resumption of land in the year 2006. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The original grantee has sold the land in favour of father of respondent Nos.5 to 7 on - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16765-DB WA No. 896 of 2023 25.10.1982 by violating the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Act. The original grantee has filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act for resumption of land before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2006. There is an inordinate delay of 24 years in invoking the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act and in view of the law laid down by the aforesaid judgment, the application itself is not maintainable.” 2. The undisputed facts are, the predecessor-in- interest of the appellant herein was granted land bearing old Sy.No.1/P35, new No.86 measuring 1 acre 39 guntas situated at Alugondanahalli Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk in the year 1964-65. Saguvali Chit was issued on 01.06.1966 with a condition not to alienate the property. The original grantee has sold the said land in favour of predecessor of respondents No.4 to 6 in this appeal vide sale deed dated 25.10.1982. Respondents No.4 to 6 have sold the land in favour of respondents No.7 and 8 herein vide sale deeds dated 31.08.2005 and 12.07.2007. It is noted that even respondent No.8 had also sold the land in favour of respondents No.9 and 10, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16765-DB WA No. 896 of 2023 who were the petitioners before the learned Single Judge. The original grantee i.e., predecessor in interest of the appellant had approached the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (‘the Act’ for short) for resumption of land in the year 2006. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 27.06.2008, has allowed the application and held that sale deed dated 25.10.1982 is contrary to the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act and resumed the land in favour of the original grantee. Respondents No.9 and 10 being aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner, had approached the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 09.10.2012, had dismissed the appeal, which resulted in respondents No.9 and 10 filing the aforesaid writ petition. 3. The learned Single Judge has held that, there was an inordinate delay of 24 years in invoking the provisions - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16765-DB WA No. 896 of 2023 of the Act. In support of his conclusion, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi -Vs.- State of Karnataka and Another [(2020) 14 SCC 232], wherein the Supreme Court has inter alia held that, an application for restoration made after 24 years could not have been allowed. We have already extracted the paragraph No.8 of the judgment of the Supreme Court while reproducing paragraphs No.7 and 8 of the impugned order. We agree with the said conclusion of the learned Single Judge. 4. We may note that, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a judgment in the case of Smt. M. Manjula and Others -Vs.- The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District and Others [WA No.210/2023, decided on 25.11.2024], on identical issue by referring to amendments which have been brought to the Act more specifically to Section 5, has dismissed the appeal filed by the legal heirs of the original grantee. Suffice to state that, the appeal thereof has been dismissed by the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16765-DB WA No. 896 of 2023 Supreme Court vide order dated 01.04.2025 in SLP(C) No.8421/2025. Additionally we find, there is a delay of 517 days in filing the appeal. So, we dismiss the appeal both on merits and on delay. No costs. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending application(s), if any, are disposed of as infructuous. PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55 Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE