- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42361-DB WA No. 1193 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 1193 OF 2023 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RATNAMMA W/O H.M. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT BIDARAHALLI, BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE, BAGALORE-560049. 2. SRI. SHAKUNTHALAMMA W/O NAGARAJU D AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT 228, 5TH CROSS, JAKKUR LAYOUT, JAKKUR, BANGALORE-560064. 3. SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT BIDARAHALLI, BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE, BANGALORE-560049. 4. SMT. ASHA.M W/O BALAJI M AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.40, OIL MILL ROAD, SAIT PALYA KACARKANAHALLI, ST. THOMAS TOWN, BANGALORE-560084. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRADEEP H S., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42361-DB WA No. 1193 of 2023 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SODUHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560001. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU-560001. 4. SRI. K.N.KRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE NANJAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/ATNO. 41/9, 13TH CROSS, 6TH D MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560038. 5. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE MUNISWAMY REDDY, MAJOR, 6. SRI NARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE DODDAMUNISWAMY REDDY, MAJOR. 7. SMT. MEENAKSHAMMA D/O LATE DODD MUNISWAMY REDDY, MAJOR. 8. SRI VASUDEVA REDDY S/O LATE DODDAMUNISWAMY REDDY, MAJOR. 9. SRI. KODANDARAMREDDY S/O LATE DODDAMUNISWAMY REDDY, MAJOR. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42361-DB WA No. 1193 of 2023 10. SRI. SOMASHEKHARA REDDY S/O LATE DODDAMUNISWAMY REDDY, MAJOR. 11. SRI GURU REDDY S/O LATE DODDAMUNISWAMY REDDY, MAJOR. 12. SMT MANJULA D/O LATE DODDAMUNISWAMY REDDY, MAJOR. 13. SMT KANTHAMMA D/O LATE DODDAMUNISWAMY REDDY MAJOR. 14. SRI. GOPAL REDDY S/O CHIKKATHAYAPPA MAJOR. 15. SRI. LOKESH @ LOKESH REDDY S/O GOPALA REDDY MAJOR, RESPONDENTS NOS. 14 & 15 ARE R/AT CHELLAKERE VILLAGE RING ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560043. 16. SMT. H. KAVITHA W/O H.D.BALAKRISHNEGOWDA, R/AT NO. 12, 80 FEET ROAD, PADMANABHA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560070. 17. JAYALAKSHMI W/O RAMANJINAPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO. 424, 18TH CROSS CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA LAYOUT AMRUTHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 092. 18. NETHRAVATHI D/O RAMANJINAPA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42361-DB WA No. 1193 of 2023 AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO. 44, THIRUMALA TEMPLE ROAD YADIYURU, BAGALURU BENGALURU-562 149. 19. ANITHA R D/O RAMANJINAPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO. 192, OVER TANK ROAD HOSAHALLI, HUNASAMARANAHALLI BENGALURU-562 157. 20. ANNAPURNA R D/O RAMANJINAPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO. 193, 1ST MAIN RAMAMANDIR MAIN ROAD NEAR WATER TANK, HUNASAMARANAHALLI BENGALURU-562 157. 21. ARPITHA R D/O RAMANJINAPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO. 424, 18TH CROSS CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA LAYOUT AMRUTHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 092. 22. NIVEDITHA R @ ANJALI D/O RAMANJINAPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT NO. 424, 18TH CROSS CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA LAYOUT AMRUTHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 092. (NOTE: THE RESPONDENTS NO. 17 TO 22 ARE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE'S OF RESPONDENTS NO.4 IN W.P WHO WAS DEMISED ON 20.07.2020) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2019 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 50366/2018 (SC-ST) AND ETC., - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42361-DB WA No. 1193 of 2023 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 01.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.50366/2018. 2. Sri.Pradeep H.S., learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has committed a grave error in appreciating the fact and the law. It is submitted that the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') does not stipulate any time limit for filing an application for restoration of land. It is further submitted that the application is filed for restoration of land as the sale by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42361-DB WA No. 1193 of 2023 original grantee is without his knowledge with regard to the bar of alienation, and the said aspect has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 3. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made. 4. The present appeal is filed along with an IA.No.1/2023 seeking for condonation of delay of 762 days in filing an appeal. The appellants also filed an application seeking permission to prosecute the appeal on the ground that the appellants are the sisters of Sri.Ramanjinappa, respondent No.4 in the writ proceedings and respondent No.4 has not participated in the writ proceedings. Hence, sought to prosecute this appeal. 5. The records indicate that the land in question was originally granted in favour Sri.Anjinappa on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42361-DB WA No. 1193 of 2023 30.04.1969 and he sold the said property on 28.09.1970. The legal heirs of the original grantee filed an application for restoration of the land in their favour under Section 5 of the Act. Admittedly, the initiation of proceedings by the legal heirs of the grantee is beyond 30 years and considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER1, VIVEK M.HINDUJA Vs. M.ASWATHA2, CHHEDI LAL YADAV Vs. HARI KISHORE YADAV3 and NINGAPPA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS4, the learned Single Judge held that the order of restoration passed by the respondent No.2 is beyond reasonable period and proceeded to set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ petition. We do not find any error or perversity in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge calling for interference in this appeal. 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 2 (2019) 1 Kant.L.J. 819 SC 3 (2018) 12 SCC 527 4 (2020) 14 SCC 236 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42361-DB WA No. 1193 of 2023 6. We have perused the application seeking condonation of delay, the appellants have not shown sufficient cause to condone the delay of 762 days in filing the appeal. Hence, even on the ground of delay, the appeal is liable to be rejected. For the aforementioned reasons, IA for condonation of delay is rejected as well as the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23