- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7139-DB WA No. 852 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.852 OF 2023 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: SMT. AMMAIAH, W/O LATE CHANDRU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT MADAGHATTA BIKKODU HOBLI - 573 215 BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MAHESH A S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. R. MANJUNATH S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2150 1ST CROSS, ASHOKAPURAM MYSURU – 570 008 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAKALESHPUR SUB DIVISION SAKALESHPUR - 573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN - 573 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R2 & R3) Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7139-DB WA No. 852 of 2023 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 22.06.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.17602/2022 (SC/ST), 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 dated 22.06.2023 in W.P.No.17602/2022 whereby, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein by stating in paragraphs 6 and 7 as under:- “6. In the instant case, diligence in woefully lacking. There is delay of 26 years in initiating action. Both the authorities were justified in dismissing the restoration application in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment cited supra. The Apex Court in the judgments cited supra has held that the authority should not entertain the restoration petition under the provisions of PTCL Act if there is inordinate delay. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the respondent No.2-Assistant - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7139-DB WA No. 852 of 2023 Commissioner and respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner. 7. For the foregoing reasons, I pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.” 2. It may be stated here that the respondent No.1, on whom the notice was issued and also the report of the Registry dated 16.09.2023 suggests that the respondent No.1 has expired, qua him surely, the appeal stands abated. Even otherwise, we have considered the issue which was decided by the learned Single Judge on merits. We agree the facts noted by the learned Single Judge that the land was granted to Sri.Siddaiah @ Sidda in the year 1931. 3. After the demise of original grantee, his son Kenchaiah sold the petition land in favour of one R.Manjunath under registered sale deed dated 11.04.1988. The grandson of the original grantee namely Chandru, who is also husband of the appellant herein filed - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7139-DB WA No. 852 of 2023 an application seeking restoration in the year 2014. The respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another1 rejected the restoration application on the ground that the application is filed after inordinate delay of 26 years. Feeling aggrieved, husband of the appellant preferred an appeal before the respondent No.3 - Deputy Commissioner. Respondent No.3 - Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner. It is in this background that the writ petition was filed. 4. Suffice to state that the learned Single Judge in paragraphs No.3 and 4 has referred to the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also this Court. We reproduce the said paragraphs as under:- “3. Before I advert to the facts of the present case, it would be useful to refer to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court on this issue in Nekkanti 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7139-DB WA No. 852 of 2023 Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and another and Vivek M. Hinduja vs. M. Aswatha. It would be also useful to refer to the judgment rendered by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446 of 2012, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.16/2021 disposed of on 05.04.2021. 4. The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi, while interpreting Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act") had an occasion to examine the point of limitation wherein interested person can file appropriate application seeking annulment of sale as void under Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The Apex Court by reiterating the principles laid down in Chhedi Lal Yadav.vs. Hari Kishore Yadav and also in the case of Ningappa vs. Deputy Commissioner and others has held that where Statute did not prescribe the period of limitation, the provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. The Apex Court was of the view that the authorities have to give due regard to the period of time within which action has to be taken by the interested person. The Apex Court was of the view that it is well within the discretion of the competent authorities not to annul the alienations where there is inordinate delay in initiating action by the interested persons under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 disposed of on 24.1.2020 declined to entertain the application filed by the original grantee where there was a delay of ten years. This Court was of the view that the application itself was not maintainable since the same was not filed within a reasonable time. While recording the finding, this Court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ningappa vs. Deputy Commissioner and others, where the Apex Court had declined to entertain the application which was submitted after nine years seeking restoration of land under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The judgment - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7139-DB WA No. 852 of 2023 rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 is affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.16/2021.” 5. In view of the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge with which we agree, we do not see any merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10