- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47426-DB W.A. No.637/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.637/2023 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: KARIYAPPA S/O LATE KUNTA RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O BOKIKERE MAJURE, KASABA HOBLI K K HATTI VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. TEJAS B.N. ADV.,) AND: 1. K.S. MARALASIDDAMMA W/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS OCC : AGRICULTURIST R/O M.G. DIBBA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. 2. K.N. YATHISH S/O LATE K.S. NINGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/O M.G. DIBBA VILLAGE Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47426-DB W.A. No.637/2023 KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. 3. K.S. SOUBHAGYAMMA W/O G.N. SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURIST R/O M.G. DIBBA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DIST-577522. 4. S. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURIST R/O M.G. DIBBA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. 5. S. DHANANJAYA S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURIST R/O M.G. DIBBA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. 6. S. SHIVAMURTHY LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURIST R/O M.G. DIBBA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. 7. S. NAGARAJA S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURIST R/O M.G. DIBBA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURAGA TALUK - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47426-DB W.A. No.637/2023 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. 8. K.S. SHIVAPUTRAMMA W/O SHIVASHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURIST R/O M.G. DIBBA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522. 9. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA-577501. 10. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA-577501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.R. NAIK, ADV., FOR R2 SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R9 & R10) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING THAT THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.57900/2016 MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL AND THE WRIT PETITION, WITH COST THROUGHOUT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 14.11.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47426-DB W.A. No.637/2023 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.57900/2016 (SC/ST). 2. Sri.Shivaprasad T., learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in allowing the writ petition without appreciating the material available on record in its proper perspective. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to take note of the fact that the sale deed executed is in violation of the grant conditions and solely on the ground of delay, has proceeded to allow the writ petition. It is further submitted that the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act') is welfare legislation with a specific object to protect the interests of the grantee and there is no limitation provided - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47426-DB W.A. No.637/2023 under the Act to file an application for restoration and resumption. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 3. Per contra, Sri.N.R.Naik, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the learned Single Judge, after considering the material on record and the judicial precedents, has held that the application filed before respondent No.9 - Assistant Commissioner is after an enormous delay of 26 years and the same cannot be held to be reasonable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47426-DB W.A. No.637/2023 5. The material on record indicates that the grandfather of appellant i.e., Sri.Hanumappa, was granted land in Sy.No.56/1 measuring 4 acres situated at Bokikere Village, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District, vide grant order dated 22.03.1955. The original grantee sold the subject land in favour of one Smt.Shankaramma vide registered sale deed 08.05.1961. Admittedly, the legal heirs of the grantee filed an application under Section 5 of the Act before respondent No.9 - Assistant Commissioner on 01.03.2005 seeking for declaration that the sale transaction dated 08.05.1961 is null and void, since the sale transaction is in violation of the conditions imposed in the grant. The said application came to be allowed, by holding that the sale transaction was in violation of the conditions of the grant and further directed resumption and restoration of the land in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee. The order of the respondent No.9- Assistant Commissioner was assailed before respondent No.10 - Deputy Commissioner in an appeal, wherein the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47426-DB W.A. No.637/2023 order passed by respondent No.9 was upheld on the grounds of violation of conditions of grant. The initiation of proceedings under Section 5 of the Act is in the year 2005 and considering that the sale is of the year 1961, the initiation of proceedings would be after more than 44 years from the sale and 26 years from the date of commencement of the Act. The learned Single Judge, considering the law on point, held that application filed before respondent No.9 - Assistant Commissioner is after an enormous delay, which cannot be termed to be reasonable, and that the application is required to be rejected solely on the ground of delay and laches. We do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. 6. It would be useful to refer to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and Another1, 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47426-DB W.A. No.637/2023 Vivek M.Hinduja Vs. M.Aswatha2, Chhedi Lal Yadav Vs. Hari Kishore Yadav3 and Ningappa Vs. Deputy Commissioner and Others4 wherein it was held that the application for resumption or restoration cannot be entertained beyond a reasonable period. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sri.Keshavamurthy and Another v. Special Deputy Commissioner and Others5 and in the case of Smt.M.Manjula and others vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Benglauru and others6, considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra as well as the decision in the case of Smt.Gouramma @ Gangamma v. Deputy Commissioner, Haveri and Others7 held that the application seeking restoration should be within a reasonable period of time. In the case 2 (2019) 1 Kant.L.J. 819 SC 3 (2018) 12 SCC 527 4 (2020) 14 SCC 236 5 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 6517 6 ILR 2024 KAR 4953 7 W.A.No.100101/2024 dated 29.07.2024 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47426-DB W.A. No.637/2023 of Gouramma referred supra, the Co-ordinate Bench at para 3(f), (g), (h) and (i) held as under: 3.(f) It may be true, that the legislative debates might have taken place about the observations of the Apex Court in Nekkanti and other such cases while passing the Amendment Bill. That per se does not lend credence to the contention that the said amendment intends to invalidate the law declared by the highest court of the country which it did after considering all aspects of the matter including the sense of equity & justice. If the Legislature intended to silence the voice of Nekkanti, it would have employed a different terminology. We repeat that, ordinarily, delay is decided by computing the period of limitation prescribed by law, whereas “laches” is decided keeping in view a host of factors. Cases are repleat in Law Reports relating to delay and laches in writ jurisdiction under Articles 12, 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. This is only to illustrate. (g) There is a marked difference between ‘delay & laches’ that operate in equity and ‘limitation & delay’ that obtain in law. The following observations of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. N.Murugesan8 make out this point: "Delay, laches and acquiescence 20. The principles governing delay, laches, and acquiescence are overlapping and interconnected on many occasions. However, they have their distinct characters and distinct elements. One can say that delay is the genus to which laches and acquiescence are species. Similarly, laches 8 (2022) 2 SCC 25 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47426-DB W.A. No.637/2023 might be called a genus to a species by name acquiescence. However, there may be a case where acquiescence is involved, but not laches. These principles are common law principles, and perhaps one could identify that these principles find place in various statutes which restrict the period of limitation and create nonconsideration of condonation in certain circumstances.… The underlying principle governing these concepts would be one of estoppel. The question of prejudice is also an important issue to be taken note of by the court. Laches. 21. The word “laches” is derived from the French language meaning “remissness and slackness”. It thus involves unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a claim involving an equitable relief while causing prejudice to the other party. It is neglect on the part of a party to do an act which law requires while asserting a right, and therefore, must stand in the way of the party getting relief or remedy. 22. Two essential factors to be seen are the length of the delay and the nature of acts done during the interval. As stated, it would also involve acquiescence on the part of the party approaching the court apart from the change in position in the interregnum. Therefore, it would be unjustifiable for a Court of Equity to confer a remedy on a party who knocks its doors when his acts would indicate a waiver of such a right. By his conduct, he has put the other party in a particular position, and therefore, it would be unreasonable to facilitate a challenge before the court. Thus, a man responsible - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47426-DB W.A. No.637/2023 for his conduct on equity is not expected to be allowed to avail a remedy.” (h) We are told at the Bar that the subject Amendment has been put in challenge in W.P.No.27496/2023 and that, matter is pending consideration. We make it clear that construction of a statute is one thing and its validity is another. We do not want to say even a word about the validity, that is being examined by the learned Single Judge before whom the matter is pending. We have only placed our interpretation on the amended provisions of the Act and nothing beyond. (i) Before parting with this case, we are constrained to observe that, legislative process is not simple and easy. It has to be undertaken with a lot of care, caution & expertise. Law speaks through language. If language is not properly employed what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, what needs to be done remains undone or misdone. A linguistic defect thus may defeat the intent of legislation. More is not necessary to specify. 7. In view of the preceding analysis, the unexplained delay of more than 44 years from the date of sale deed and 26 years from the Act coming into force in filing an application under Section 5 of the Act for resumption and restoration of the land cannot be termed as a reasonable time. The learned Single Judge has rightly considered that there is an inordinate delay and dismissed - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47426-DB W.A. No.637/2023 the writ petition, which does not call for any interference. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, the same is rejected. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR/ABK List No.: 4 Sl No.: 2