- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18149-DB WA No. 999 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH 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.999 OF 2023 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NAGAPPA S/O LATE THOTADA BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. SRI. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O LATE THOTADA BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 3. SRI. RAMAPPA S/O LATE THOTADA BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 4. SRI. SHIVANANJAPPA S/O LATE THOTADA BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE ALL AGRICULTURISTS RESIDENT OF HOSAKUNDAVADA DAVANAGERE TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN - 577 005 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA HARAVI GOWDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18149-DB WA No. 999 of 2023 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND COMMERCE M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE REVENUE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE-577 002. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION, DAVANAGERE-577 002 4. SRI. SRINIVASA S/O LATE THIPPERUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 5. SMT. DRAKSHAYANAMMA W/O VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 6. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE SHAMOONARAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 7. SRI. PARASHURAMA S/O LATE SHAMOONARAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 8. SRI. ASHOKAPPA S/O LATE SHAMOONARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT HOSAKUNDAVADA DAVANAGERE TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN – 577 002 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18149-DB WA No. 999 of 2023 9. SMT. RENUKAMMA W/O RAJAPPA CHIKKANNANAVAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHINNAMULAGUNDA HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT PIN - 581 110 10. SRI BASAPPA S/O NARASAPURA DEVANNA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOSAKUNDAVADA DAVANAGERE TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN - 581 110 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1 – R3; R4, R6, R7, R8 AND R9 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO. 58812/2013 DATED 03.07.2023 CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18149-DB WA No. 999 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) The challenge in this intra-Court appeal is to an order dated 03.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.58812/2013 whereby, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition upholding the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner by stating as under:- "7. If these significant details are taken into consideration, this Court would find that the restoration petition is filed after a lapse of 52 years. In the instance case, diligence is woefully lacking. Therefore, the order of restoration passed by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner in entertaining the petition is not sustainable. The restoration application is liable to be dismissed on three counts. On examining the records, this Court would find that the grant certificate was issued under Form No.1. The nature of grant under Form No.1 is given a quietus by the Apex Court in the case of B.K.Muniraju vs. State of Karnataka1. The Apex Court has held that a grant certificate under Form No.1 is a title document, and therefore, provisions of PTCL Act are not applicable. Secondly, there is an inordinate delay of 52 years and therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment cited supra, the legal heirs of the original grantee were not entitled to seek restoration. The third ground on which the restoration petition is liable to be rejected is that there are a series of alienations. The property is liable to be rejected is that there are a series of alienations. The property has changed hands and on account of the passage of time, the subsequent purchasers, being bonafide purchasers, have acquired valid rights, and their rights have crystallized. Therefore, the order 1 (2008) 4 SCC 451 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18149-DB WA No. 999 of 2023 passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner does not warrant any interference. 8. In view of discussion made supra, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER (i) The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed;" 2. The facts as noted by the learned Single Judge are that the original grantee mortgaged the land in question in favour of one Halappa, Thippendrappa, Obanna and Erappa. The original grantee died in the year 1998. Out of the total extent of 8 acres 4 guntas, the original grantee sold 3 acres 2 guntas in favour of Halappa S/o Madivala Hanumappa in 1956 and the remaining extent of 4 acres 35 guntas was sold in favour of Bellary Tipperudrappa in 1957. The first purchaser, namely Halappa, in turn sold 1 acre 20 guntas in favour of Basappa s/o Devappa and the remaining 1 acre 27 guntas in favour of Veerappa s/o Gangappa. Bellary Thipperudrappa, who was the second purchaser, in turn sold 1 acre 15 guntas in favour of respondent No.5 namely, Drakshayanamma and 1 acre 16 guntas in favour of Veerappa s/o Gangappa. The petitioners before the learned Single Judge were the legal heirs of the original grantee, initiated action by filing an application - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18149-DB WA No. 999 of 2023 under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as ‘PTCL Act’, for short). The Assistant Commissioner, after notifying the parties has allowed the application and ordered restoration on the ground that alienation contravenes the provisions of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The said order has been reversed by the Deputy Commissioner. 3. The finding of the learned Single Judge is in paragraph No.5. Learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav vs. Hari Kishore Yadav2 and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another3 to hold in paragraph Nos.7 and 8 that the restoration has been sought after a period of 52 years. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants do not dispute that the restoration has been sought after a period of 52 years. We find that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A.No.210/2023 2 (2018) 12 SCC 527 3 (2020) 14 SCC 232 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18149-DB WA No. 999 of 2023 dated 25.11.2024 on a similar issue and also by referring to the amendment which has been brought to the Section 5 of the PTCL Act, has dismissed the appeal by stating in paragraphs No.4.6, 4.6.1 and 4.6.2 as under:- 4.6 However, the aspects which emerged in light of the law laid down in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra), vis- à-vis the amendment in Section 5 and the situation obtained, came to be dealt with by the coordinate bench of this Court at Dharwad in Smt. Gouramma alias Gangamma vs. Deputy Commissioner, Haveri, which was Writ Appeal No.100101 of 2024 decided on 29th July 2024. 4.6.1 After noticing the amendment in Section 5, the division bench observed thus, in para 3(d), "The Amendment Act that is made applicable with retrospective effect is only a duplication of the existing legal position. Such duplication happened even in English legislative history, hardly needs to be mentioned. The question of delay is a matter of limitation which this statute is silent about. Clauses (c) and (d), now introduced to Section 5(1) of the Act, do not bring any change in the statutory scheme. At the most, they are declaratory of what the statute has been all through, so far as the limitation period is concerned. Nobody disputes that there was no limitation period earlier and there is no limitation period now too. Laches, which would involve a host of factors, pertains to the Domain of Equity." 4.6.2 It was observed that in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra), did not speak of limitation period, but focused on the long lapse of time in making the application for restitution of the land, by quoting paragraph 8 above from the said decision, the division bench then held as per para 3(f), - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:18149-DB WA No. 999 of 2023 "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 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." 5. The conclusion drawn in paragraph No.5.2 and 6 are also important which we reproduce as under:- “5.2 Though the principles governing overlap, the delay and *laches has the facet in equity. Delay is the genus to which the*laches and acquiescence are species. The jurisprudential concepts of delay, "laches and acquiescence have their own colour and connotation and conceptually often different from crossing the period of limitation prescribed in the statutory provision. Limitation binds the litigant in terms of initiating a legal action or filing any proceedings. Laches concedes an element of culpability in allowing time to pass by in commencing the action in law. 6. In light of the above discussion and the position of law that would emerge, in the facts of the case, the restoration of the land cannot be permitted after 12 years. The question of laches would come into play. 12 years having been passed, it would be highly unreasonable, unjust and inequitable, as well as against law to grant any relief to the original grantee-the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:18149-DB WA No. 999 of 2023 petitioner-appellant, permitting restoration of the land and to treat the transfer of the land taken place long back to be null and void.” 6. The appeal challenging the order dated 25.11.2024 in W.A.No.210/2023 to the Supreme Court has been dismissed by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.8421/2025 vide order dated 01.04.2025. The order reads as under:- “Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners. We see absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed along with pending application(s) if any.” 7. In view of the settled position of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reiterated by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, we agree with the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. We do not see any merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15