- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5680 WP No. 112012 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 112012 OF 2014 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SIDDAPPA LAXMAPPA GUDAGUDI, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. 1A. SMT. MALLAVVA W/O. SIDDAPPA GUDAGUDI, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK 1B. LAKKAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA GUDAGUDI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE 1C. UDAYKUMAR S/O. SIDDAPPA GUDAGUDI AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O. H.NO.289, KURABAR DADDI, WARD NO.17, GOKAK-591307 TQ. GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5680 WP No. 112012 of 2014 1D. SMT. AKSHATA W/O. VITTAL TADASANUR, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O.# 739, BEERESHWAR NAGAR, DEVAGOUDANAHATTI POST. KHANAGAON – 591344. TQ. GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. (THE LRS OF DECEASED PETITIONER NO.1 HAVE COME RECORD AS PETITIONER NO.1A TO1D AS PER ORDER DATED 22.08.2023) 2. SRI. LAGAMAPPA LAXMAPPA GUDAGUDI AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEAR LAXMI DEVI TEMPLE, GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK. 3. SRI. DEVAPPA LAXMAPPA GUDAGUDI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEAR LAXMI DEVI TEMPLE, GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-01. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, D. C. COMPOUND, BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5680 WP No. 112012 of 2014 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM. 5. THE TAHASILDAR, GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM. SHRI. BALAPPA BHIMAPPA ARENNAVAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 6. SRI. HANUMANTAPPA BALAPPA ARENNAVAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC NIL, R/O: GOKAK, TQ: BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5; R6 - SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2014 IN RB/ MISCELLANEOUS/AP-05/2012-13 AND RB/MISCELLANEOUS/AP- 10/2012-13 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A CONFIRMING THE COMMON ORDERS DATED 30.08.2012 IN PTCL/CR-22/11-12 AND PTCL/CR-23/11-12 PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURES B & C RESPECTIVELY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5680 WP No. 112012 of 2014 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 19.06.2014, passed by respondent No.2 – the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, produced as per Annexure-A, confirming the orders dated 30.08.2012, passed by respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal, produced as per Annexures B and C. 2. Heard Sri.Chetan Munnoli, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.P.N.Hatti, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Perused the materials on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that; 3.1. The father of respondent No.6 was granted land in Survey No.291/1B measuring 02 acres and the land in Survey No.292/2 measuring 02 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5680 WP No. 112012 of 2014 acres, situated at Gokak Village and Taluk, as per the order of grant dated 28.04.1977. 3.2. As per Annexure-E dated 29.11.1995, the Tahsildar passed an order for deletion of non- alienation clause for 15 years, found in the original grant order. 3.3. Accordingly, the original grantee and his children sold both these properties in favour of the petitioners under two separate registered sale deeds dated 12.12.1995. 3.4. After lapse of over 16 years i.e., on 01.12.2011, the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal, appears to have initiated suo moto enquiry regarding alienation of the land in favour of the petitioners and passed an order for restoration of the land under Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PTCL - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5680 WP No. 112012 of 2014 Act’, for short), produced as per Annexures B and C. 3.5. The petitioners have challenged this order before the Deputy Commissioner, who confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner, by passing the order as per Annexure-A. 3.6. Thus, the petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash Annexures - A to C. 4. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that; 4.1. It is a general grant made in favour of the father of respondent No.6 and therefore, the provisions of the PTCL Act is not applicable. The order of grant is produced as per Annexure-D. On the recommendation of the Land Grant Committee, invoking the power under Rule 8(4) of the Land Grant Rules, 1969, the land in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5680 WP No. 112012 of 2014 question was granted in favour of the father of respondent No.6 and of course it is a general grant. 4.2. Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act, defines the word "granted land", which would mean any land granted by the Government to a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe and includes the land allotted or granted to such persons under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to agrarian reforms etc. 4.3. It is not in dispute that Respondent No.6 belongs to the Lamani Community, which is a Scheduled Caste. Since, the land in question was granted in favour of his father, under the provisions of the Land Grant Rules, definitely it will fall within the definition of ‘granted land’, as defined under Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act. Therefore, the contention raised by the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5680 WP No. 112012 of 2014 petitioners that the grant was made under the General Rules and that the provisions of the PTCL Act are not applicable, cannot be accepted and is accordingly rejected. 5. The second contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that; 5.1. There has been an inordinate delay of more than 16 years in initiation of suo motto enquiry regarding alienation of the land in favour of the petitioners and therefore, the delay defeats the right of Assistant Commissioner to initiate suo moto enquiry and restore the land back to the original grantee. 5.2. In that regard, learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka And Another1, wherein the 1 [2020] 14 SCC 232 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5680 WP No. 112012 of 2014 Hon’ble Apex Court, while referring to Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act, observed that, Section 4 of the PTCL Act does not prescribe any specific period, within which such application can be made or for initiation of suo moto action. However, placing reliance on its earlier decisions in Chhedi Lal Yadav(D) and Ors. vs. Hari Kishore Yadav(D) Thr. LRs. & Ors.,2 and Sri. Ningappa vs. The Deputy Commissioner3, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the actions, whether on the application of the parties or suo moto, must be taken within a reasonable time. 5.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in K. Venkatesh vs. State of Karnataka4, wherein the Division Bench of this Court, placing reliance on the decision of 2 (2018) 12 SCC 527 3 (2020) 14 SCC 236 4 WA No. 1975 of 2023 dated 27.02.2025 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5680 WP No. 112012 of 2014 the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi’s case (supra) and also on the decision in Gangamma vs. Deputy Commissioner5, held that, the ‘limitation’ is a period prescribed under law to take any action. Whereas the concept of ‘delay and laches’ has a different connotation to operate, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. N. Murugesan6. It is also held in Murugesan’s case (supra), that the term ‘laches’ is derived from French language meaning ‘remissness and slackness’. It thus involves unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a claim. 5.4. The Division Bench came to the conclusion that the delay of 12 years in seeking resumption of the land cannot be permitted, as it is hit by the principle of delay and laches. It is observed that, it is highly unreasonable, unjust and 5 WA No.100101 of 2024 date 29.07.2024 6 (2022) 2 SCC 25 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5680 WP No. 112012 of 2014 inequitable, as well as against law, to grant any relief to the original grantee, by permitting restoration of the land and to treat the transfer of the land taken place long back, to be null and void. 6. It is to be noticed that, the Division Bench of this Court in M. Manjula and others vs. Deputy Commissioner and others7 referring to Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi’s case (supra), Smt.Gouramma’s case (supra) and Murugesan’s case (supra), considered the amended Section 5 of the PTCL Act and held that laches concedes an element of culpability in allowing the time to pass by commencing the action in law, while ‘limitation’ binds the litigant in terms of initiating an legal action or filing any proceedings. Therefore, it is held that the restoration of the land cannot be permitted after 7 WA No.210 of 2023, dated 25.11.2024 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5680 WP No. 112012 of 2014 unreasonable delay of 12 years, as the principle of laches would come into play. 7. From all these decisions, it could be concluded that the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, even after the amendment to Section 5 of the PTCL Act, consistently held that, even in the absence of any period of limitation prescribed for filing an application for resumption, or for suo moto action for resumption, the delay and laches on the part of the original grantee or by the authority concerned, is to be taken into consideration. If there is unreasonable delay, the original grantee is not entitled for any relief. 8. If these decisions are made applicable to the facts in the present case, the original grantee i.e., father of respondent No.6 and his children, sold the land under two separate registered sale deeds in favour of the petitioners on 12.12.1995, and after lapse of 16 years i.e., on 01.12.2011, the Assistant - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5680 WP No. 112012 of 2014 Commissioner, Gokak, initiated suo moto enquiry regarding alienation of the land in favour of the petitioners and passed order for restoration of the land under Section 4 of the PTCL Act. Therefore, the doctrine of delay and laches will definitely be applicable to the respondent No.6 to seek resumption of the land, which he had sold under the registered sale deeds long back. Moreover, it is to be noted that the Tahsildar, Gokak, has passed a conscious order as per Annexure-E, on 29.11.1995, deleting the non-alienation clause, which must have prompted the petitioners to purchase the land. Therefore, it is unreasonable, at this juncture, to order resumption of the land in favour of respondent No.6. Hence, I am of the opinion that the impugned order, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, which is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5680 WP No. 112012 of 2014 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 19.06.2014, passed by respondent No.2 – the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, produced as per Annexure-A, confirming the common order dated 30.08.2012 passed by respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal, produced as per Annexures ‘B’ and ‘C’, are set aside. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE gab CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6