- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7137-DB WA No. 929 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO.929 OF 2023 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MUKAPPA S/O BHARAMAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, RESIDING AT NEAR SHANESHWARA TEMPLE, RANGANATHASWAMY BADAVANE, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 501. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 201. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA SUB-DIVISION, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 201. 3. SRI.B.M. SHASHIKUMARA S/O MUKAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, RESIDING AT NIGA NILAYA, NAGARATHNAMMA LAYOUT, 3RD CROSS, RAGIGUDDA, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201. Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7137-DB WA No. 929 of 2023 4. SMT. MANJULA W/O RAMESHA AGE: MAJOR ALL ARE RESIDING AT NEAR SHANESHWARA TEMPLE RANGANATHASWAMY BADAVANE SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201. 5. SRI.M. HALAPPA S/O MALLAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, RESIDING AT K.K.HOSURU BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 115. 6. SRI. MIR MAZHAR UL HAQ @ MADAR SAB S/O S.M.JAFAR SIDDIQUE, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 7. SRI. MIR EHTASHAM UL HAQ @ BAB JAN S/O S.M JAFAR SIDDIQUE, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 8. SRI. MIR SIRAJ UL HAQ @ BAB JAN S/O S.M JAFAR SIDDIQUE, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT H.NO.1005, SAVIDA PALYA, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRIKANTH PATIL K, ADVOCATE FOR R6 –R8) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.13116 OF 2023 (SC-ST) DATED 03.07.2023 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7137-DB WA No. 929 of 2023 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 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) This appeal lays a challenge to the order dated 03.07.2023 in W.P.No.13116/2023 whereby, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents No.6, 7 and 8 herein by stating in paragraphs No.11 and 12 as under:- “11. For the reasons stated supra, the order passed by first respondent – Deputy Commissioner suffers from serious infirmities. The first respondent – Deputy Commissioner has not taken pains to examine the nature of the land. He has not examined the inordinate delay of 13 years 11 months. The impugned judgment is rendered in 2023. The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and another has defined what constitutes a reasonable period and this judgment is rendered in 2019. Therefore, the order of restoration passed by Deputy Commissioner is found to be in contravention of the dictum and principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments cited supra. Therefore, I am of the view that the order passed by first respondent – Deputy Commissioner is not sustainable. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7137-DB WA No. 929 of 2023 12. For the reasons stated supra, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The order dated 29.05.2023 passed by the first respondent – Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure – A is hereby quashed.” 2. The writ petition was filed by the respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8 herein challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner, who has allowed the appeal. The order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 29.05.2023 was set aside by the learned Single Judge on a finding given in paragraph No.11 of the impugned order as noted above. 3. Suffice to state that while coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the learned Single Judge has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another1 as there was delay of 13 years and 11 months for initiating a challenge. We agree that the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7137-DB WA No. 929 of 2023 paragraphs. Though on the last date of the hearing, notice was directed to be issued to respondent Nos.3 and 5, we find that the contesting party i.e., appellant is represented by the counsel. 4. Having heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the records in view of our conclusion above, 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.: 13