- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28898-DB WA No. 1382 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 1382 OF 2024 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. PEERYANAIKA S/O CHIKKIANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DODDERI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT-527230. …APPELLANT (BY SRI BADARINARAYANA M.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANGERE SUB DIVISION DAVANGERE - 577 217. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANGERE - 577 001. Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28898-DB WA No. 1382 of 2024 3. M. VEERAPPAIAH S/O CHIKKAVEERAIAH RESIDENT OF DODDERI VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK - 577 230. 4. BASAIAH S/O SANNATUDRAIAH DODDERI VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK - 577 230. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & 2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL FILED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.No.3966/2022 (SC/ST) DATED: 14/09/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID PETITION & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28898-DB WA No. 1382 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, impugning an order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3966 of 2022 (SC-ST), captioned 'Peeryanaika v. The Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere Sub-Division and others'. 2. The appellant had filed the said petition alleging that the sale deed dated 22.02.1984 executed in favour of respondent No.3 was in contravention of Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [the PTCL Act]. The said application was allowed by respondent No.1 and the subject land was restored in favour of the appellant. Respondent No.4 had appealed the said order under Section 5(A) of the PTCL Act before respondent No.2, which was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28898-DB WA No. 1382 of 2024 allowed. Respondent No.2 set aside the order passed by respondent No.1 and held that the appellant was not entitled for restoration of the subject land as the application was filed after an inordinate delay of twenty eight years from the date of the first sale. 3. The learned Single Judge has, following the decisions of the Supreme Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and another: (2020) 14 SCC 232 and Ningappa v. Deputy Commissioner and others: (2020) 14 SCC 236, dismissed the appellant’s writ petition. 4. Briefly stated, the facts necessary to address the controversy in the present appeal are that the agricultural land measuring three acres located in Survey No.61/B10, New No.108 [subject land] was granted to the appellant on 02.05.1961. Thereafter, on 22.02.1984 the appellant sold the subject land to respondent No.3, which appellant claims was in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. 5. On 27.04.1995, respondent Nos.3 and 4 exchanged their properties in terms of an exchange deed. Consequent to the said transaction, respondent No.4 became the owner of the subject - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28898-DB WA No. 1382 of 2024 land. Approximately, eighteen years thereafter, the appellant initiated the proceedings in [Case No.PTCL.CR.07/14-15] under the PTCL Act for annulling the sale of the subject land, which was consummated on 22.02.1984 . 6. Respondent No.1 accepted the appellant's claim and by an order dated 30.01.2017 annulled the sale deed dated 22.02.1984 executed in favour of respondent No.3. Consequently, the subject land was restored in the name of the appellant. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.4 filed an appeal before respondent No.2 [Case No.PTCL/CR-6/2017-18]. The said appeal was allowed by an order dated 24.08.2021. Respondent no. 2 found that the application for restoration was not maintainable as it was filed after an inordinate delay of about 28 years. Accordingly, the cancellation/restoration order passed by respondent No.1 was set aside. 8. The appellant assailed the said order by filing a writ petition being Writ Petition No.3966 of 2022, which was dismissed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28898-DB WA No. 1382 of 2024 9. The only question is to be examined whether the appellant's application for annulling the sale deed dated 22.02.1984, was maintainable, after a period of almost twenty eight years. The said issue is no longer res integra. In Nekkanti (supra), the Supreme Court, in somewhat similar context, had held as under, "8. However, the question that arises is with regard to terms of Section 5 of the Act which enables any interested person to make an application for having the transfer annulled as void under Section 4 of the Act. This section does not prescribe any period within which such an application can be made. Neither does it prescribe the period within which suo motu action may be taken. This Court in Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav, (2018) 12 SCC 527 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 427] and also in Ningappa v. Commr., (2020) 14 SCC 236 reiterated a settled position in law that whether statute provided for a period of limitation, provisions of the statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. It is held that action whether on an application of the parties, or suo motu, must be taken within a reasonable time. That action arose under the provisions of a similar Act which provided for restoration of certain lands to farmers which were sold for arrears of rent or from which they were ejected for arrears of land from 1-1-1939 to 31-12-1950. This relief was granted to the farmers due to flood in Kosi River which make agricultural operations impossible. An application for restoration was made after 24 years and was allowed. It is in that background that this Court upheld that it was unreasonable to do so. We have no hesitation in upholding that the present application for restoration of land made by respondent Rajappa was made after an unreasonably long period and was liable to be dismissed on that ground. Accordingly, the judgments of the Karnataka High Court, namely, R. Rudrappa v. Commr., 1998 SCC OnLine Kar 671: (2000) 1 Kant LJ 523], Maddurappa v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 4 Kant LJ 303 and G. Maregouda v. Commr., (2000) 2 Kant LJ SN 4B holding that there is no limitation provided - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28898-DB WA No. 1382 of 2024 by Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, an application can be made at any time, are overruled. Order accordingly." 10. It is equally relevant to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ningappa v. Deputy Commissioner and others: (2020) 14 SCC 236, wherein the Supreme Court had observed as under: "3. Admittedly, Respondents 3 to 7 had sold the land in question to the appellant in the year 1972. This was done by Respondents 3 to 7 voluntarily and of their own free volition. It is only in the year 1988 that they filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 4 read with Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 inter alia praying for cancellation of the sale transaction and also restoration of the land in question. 4. In our opinion, the application of the respondents should have been rejected on the short ground that there was considerable delay in filing the same and thus it was not maintainable. Even if no limitation is prescribed by the statute, all acts have to be done within a reasonable period of time." 11. We also consider it apposite to refer to the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. M. Manjula and others v. The Deputy Commissioner and others: NC:2024:KHC:51015- DB, whereby this Court has held as under: "6. In light of the above discussion and the position of law that would emerge, in the facts of the case, the restoration of the land cannot be permitted after 12 years. The question of laches would come into play. 12 years having been passed, it would be highly unreasonable, unjust and inequitable, as - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28898-DB WA No. 1382 of 2024 well as against law to grant any relief to the original grantee- the petitioner-appellant, permitting restoration of the land and to treat the transfer of the land taken place long back to be null and void." 12. We also note that the present appeal is filed after an inordinate delay of 692 days. 13. The application seeking condonation of delay provides no credible reason for condoning the co-ordinate delay of 692 days. The only explanation provided by the appellant is that because of his age and ailments he did not contact his counsel for filing the appeal. The application is without any particulars. We are unable to accept the same and the application is, accordingly, rejected. 14. In view of the above, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The present appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of delay as well as on merits. 15. Pending applications are also disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE KPS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31