- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50022-DB WA No. 100 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 100 OF 2025 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL.SECRETARY 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SUB-DIVISION, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 132 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, TUMKUR - 572 101 …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B G, AGA) AND: 1. SRI M.R.PRASANNA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O M.H.SHESHAIAH, RESIDENT OF CHIDANANDA CIRCLE, OLD BALAJINAGARA, SIRA TOWN - 572 137. Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50022-DB WA No. 100 of 2025 2. SRI M.H.THIMMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, R/O M.H.T. COMPLEX, VIDYANAGARA, SIRA TOWN - 572 137. 3. SRI NAWZABAIG, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O S.J.GAFARSAB @ GAFARBAIG, MAJIANAGARA, SIRA TOWN - 572 137. 4. SRI MUDDUVEERAPPA, S/O LATE MUDDEGOWDA, R/O BEERANAHALLI, BADAMARANAHALLI POST, HULIKUNTE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK - 572 113. 5. SRI RAJANNA, S/O RANGANATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING NEAR ANNAPOORNESHWARI TEMPLE, VIDYANAGAR, SIRA TOWN - 572 137. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.S. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS, ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2023, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P No. 11133/2023 (SC-ST) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50022-DB WA No. 100 of 2025 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) 1. The State and its authorities have filed the present intra court appeal impugning the order dated 06.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.11133/2023 (SC-ST), whereunder the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner (appellant No.2) and the Deputy Commissioner (appellant no.3). The learned Single Judge has also directed the State (appellant No.1) to take suitable action against the Deputy Commissioner. 2. The relevant factual matrix in a nutshell leading to the present writ appeal are that an extent of 3 acres in Sy.No.98/5 of Kallukote Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk, (subject property) was granted to one Chikkarangappa and saguvali chit dated 23.10.1975 was issued. One of the terms of the grant was that the grantee was required not to alienate the land for a period of 15 years. After - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50022-DB WA No. 100 of 2025 expiry of the non-alienation period, the wife and son of the grantee (Chikkarangappa) executed a Sale Deed dated 15.12.1990 conveying the subject property in favour of C.Devaraju. The said C.Devaraju got converted a portion of the subject property i.e., an extent of 2 acres from agriculture to non-agricultural industrial purposes on 21.07.1992. The original Sy.No.98/5 was sub-divided as Sy.No.98/5A measuring 1 acre and Sy.No.98/5B measuring 2 acres 0.1 gunta. On 26.10.2006, the said C.Devaraju along with his son sold 2 acres 31 guntas of the subject property in favour of Smt. M.G.Tharareddy, Kum.G.Deepa and Kum.Roohi vide registered Sale deed dated 26.10.2006 (out of the said extent, 2 acres was converted and the remaining 31 guntas was agricultural land). The said M.G.Tharareddy, Kum.G.Deepa and Kum.Roohi sold 2 acres of the property purchased by them in favour of B.M.Muddaveerappa (respondent No.4/writ petitioner No.4), M.H.Thimmaraju (respondent No.2/writ petitioner No.2) and S.J.Gaffarbaig (father of respondent No.3/writ petitioner No.3) vide registered Sale Deed dated 27.04.2008; and the balance 31 guntas of agricultural land was sold in favour of M.R.Prasanna Kumar (respondent No.1/writ petitioner No.1) vide registered Sale deed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50022-DB WA No. 100 of 2025 dated 10.8.2009. Respondent No.1 filed an application seeking for conversion of 31 guntas of land in Sy.No.98/5A1 for residential purposes, which permission was granted on 22.06.2011. 3. Subsequently Rajanna (Respondent No.5/ Respondent No.1 in writ petition) claiming to be the grandson of the original grantee, filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereafter PTCL Act) before the Assistant Commissioner seeking for resumption of the land. The writ petitioners were notified of the said proceedings, wherein they, inter alia, disputed the relationship of the applicant and the grantee, as also contented that the application for resumption was barred by time. The said application was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 30.8.2021. The writ petitioners filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, which was dismissed vide order dated 3.3.2023. Hence, respondent No.1 to respondent No.4 filed the writ petition (being W.P.No.11133/2023) challenging the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner (order dated 30.8.2021 in Case No.PTCL/SR/03/2017-18) and the Deputy Commissioner (order dated 3.3.2023 passed in Appeal - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50022-DB WA No. 100 of 2025 No.PTCL/23/2021). The learned Single Judge vide order dated 6.6.2023 allowed the writ petition, and set aside the said orders. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed. 4. The above appeal is filed after an inordinate delay of 493 days. IA.No.1/2025 is filed to condone the said delay. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the Tahsildar, Sira Taluk has deposed that being aggrieved by the order dated 06.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, he received the letter dated 09.01.2024 from the office of the Advocate General and GO dated 29.07.2024 was issued for preferring an appeal, which was received at the office of the Tahsildar on 16.11.2024. Thereafter, the appeal has been preferred on 16.01.2025. 5. The reasons stated in the affidavit are bereft of any particulars as to the details/particulars and reasons for the delay between the date of the order of the learned Single Judge ie., 06.06.2023 and the letter from the Advocate General's office, i.e., 09.01.2024. Further, there is absolutely no explanation for the delay from 09.01.2024 till the date of filing of appeal on 16.01.2025 except for stating that the GO dated 29.07.2024 was received in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50022-DB WA No. 100 of 2025 the office of the Tahsildar on 16.11.2024. Hence, it is clear that no reasons are forthcoming for condoning the inordinate delay. 6. We have also proceeded to examine the above appeal on its merits. It is clear that the subject property was granted on 23.10.1975 and the original grantee sold the same on 15.12.1990. Thereafter, the purchasers of the land got the said lands converted. The said land was also bifurcated. Subsequently, on 21.06.2017 i.e. after 42 years from the date of the grant, the application for resumption was filed. The authorities (The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner), despite a specific contention having been taken with regard to the delay in filing the same, have permitted and ordered for resumption of the land. 7. The learned Single Judge noticing the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and another: (2020) 14 SCC 232 and Vivek M.Hinduja v. M.Aswatha: (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC as also various other judgments, has allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50022-DB WA No. 100 of 2025 8. This Court in the case of C.Guruswamy v. Smt.Neelamma and others: NC: 2025:KHC:42331-DB, noticed the co-ordinate Bench judgment in the case of Smt.Gouramma Alias Gangamma v. Deputy Commissioner, Haveri (Writ Appeal No.100101/2024, decided on 29.7.2024) as also Smt.Manjula and others v. Deputy Commissioner and others : NC 2024:KHC:51015-DB, wherein it was held that the restoration of land could not be permitted after 12 years. In view of the settled proposition of law as noticed above, we concur with the decision of the learned Single Judge. 9. Accordingly, the above appeal is dismissed both on delay as well as on merits. 10. Pending IAs., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6