- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7138-DB WA No. 881 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.881 OF 2023 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI THIMMA BHOVI S/O LATE SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT HULIBELE, JANATHA COLONY, HARALGEL POST, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU 3. SRI. G.PUTTARAJU, S/O GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.170, HAMSASHREE, ANANTHARAMAIAH COMPOUND, Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7138-DB WA No. 881 of 2023 1ST CROSS, MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 018 4. SRI. GURUDEVA, S/O GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 5. SRI. RAMAKRISHNA, S/O GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 ARE R/AT NO.170, HAMSASHREE, ANANTHARAMAIAH COMPOUND, 1ST CROSS, MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 018. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.06.2023 MADE IN W.P.No.10864/2022, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, 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 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) This appeal lays a challenge to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 22.06.2023 in W.P.No.10864/2022 whereby, learned Single Judge has - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7138-DB WA No. 881 of 2023 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein by stating in paragraphs No.6 and 7 as under:- “6. The judgments cited supra clearly indicates that on the ground of gross delay and laches, the application made by the grantee or by the legal heirs under Section 5(2) of the PTCL Act requires to be rejected. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment has held that where statute does not provide for limitation, the authorities and State must act consciously and if the process of invoking the provisions of statute is delayed and is initiated after long lapse of time, the delay by itself would act as an impediment. Thus, without exception and coming across various rules of law, the Apex Court has categorically stated the law in respect of exercise of power/jurisdiction under statute where no limitation is stipulated. The law on the point of delay and laches to invoke the provisions of PTCL Act is well settled by catena of judgments. 7. 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. (ii) Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.” 2. The challenge of the appellant before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition was to an order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner reversing - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7138-DB WA No. 881 of 2023 the order of the respondent No.2 Assistant Commissioner restoring the land. The petition seeking restoration was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner. The conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No.4 requires a mention which we reproduce as under:- “4. In the instant case, the petition land was granted to the petitioner’s father by order dated 10.12.1960. The original grantee, during his life time, has alienated the petition land in favour of the mother of respondent Nos.3 to 5 under registered sale deed dated 02.02.1965. The petition seeking restoration of land is filed in the year 2008. There is a delay of 42 years in seeking restoration of the petition land. In the instant case, the diligence is woefully lacking. Respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner without examining gross delay has entertained the petition. Respondent No.1 – Deputy Commissioner taking cognizance of the inordinate delay and by following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another has rightly allowed the appeal and rejected the petition.” 3. Suffice to state the learned Single Judge after noting the fact that there is a delay of 42 years in seeking restoration of the land has dismissed the petition by referring to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav vs. Hari Kishore - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7138-DB WA No. 881 of 2023 Yadav1 reported in 2018 12 SCC 527 and also Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another2. 4. We agree with the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. We do not find 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.: 12 1 (2018) 12 SCC 527 2 (2020) 14 SCC 232