- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42056-DB WA No. 239 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2025 (SCST) BETWEEN: SMT JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, W/O RAJAPPA D/O HANUMANTHAPPA R/O AJJIHALLI VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT -577213 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. TUMBIGI PRABHUGOUDA BASAVANTARAYAGOUDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE 577001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB DIVISION DAVANAGERE -577001 3. SRI. S M RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS S/O LATE MARILINGAPPA MADEVAPPA R/O SUNNAGERE VILLAGE Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42056-DB WA No. 239 of 2025 CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT -577213 REP BY GPA HOLDER S C YOGESH …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K S HARISH, GA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2021 PASSED IN WP No-40045/2012 (SC-ST) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP.No.40045/2012 (SC-ST), whereby the said petition was allowed. Respondent No.3 (writ petitioner) had filed the said writ petition impugning an order dated 14.09.2012 passed by respondent No.1 (Appeal PTCL 10/2007-2008) dismissing the said appeal. Respondent No.3 had preferred the said appeal against - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42056-DB WA No. 239 of 2025 the order dated 19.11.2008 passed by respondent No.2, ordering restoration and possession of the subject land in favour of the legal representatives of Sri. Hanumanthappa (the grantee). 2. The subject land, measuring 5 acres 25 guntas located in Survey No. 11/4, Dondraghatta Village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District was granted in favour of Sri. Hanumanthappa, (since deceased) on 24.04.1962. 3. After the demise of Sri. Hanumanthappa, his legal heirs had executed a sale deed dated 11.02.1993, whereby this subject land was sold to respondent No.3. However, on 24.11.2006, the appellants, who are the sons of Sri. Hanumanappa filed an application for restoration of the subject land on the ground that the sale was void in terms of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. The said application was allowed by respondent No.2 in terms of an order dated 19.11.2008 and, it was directed that the subject land be restored in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased Hanumanthappa. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.3 preferred an appeal being PTCL.10/2007-08, which was dismissed by an order dated 14.09.2012. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42056-DB WA No. 239 of 2025 4. Respondent No.3 assailed the said order by filing a writ petition being WP.No.40045/2012 (SC-ST) . 5. The learned Single Judge noted that the subject land was granted in favour of Hanumanthappa on 27.7.1950. The subject land was alienated by his three daughters namely, Hanumakka, Nelamma and Jayamma vide registered Sale Deed dated 11.2.1993 in favour of the writ petitioner, after his demise. Since the application for resumption was filed after a lapse of more than 14 years, the learned Single Judge, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka & Anr.,: 2020 (14) SCC 232 held that the application filed by the appellant was not within the reasonable time and allowed the writ petition. The orders dated 19.11.2008 and 14.9.2012 were accordingly set aside. We find no error in the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. 6. We also note that the above writ appeal is filed after an inordinate delay of 1048 days. IA.No.1/2025 is filed seeking to condone the said delay. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it is averred that in the month of January, 2025, the appellant learnt regarding the attempts made by respondent No.1 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42056-DB WA No. 239 of 2025 to dispose of the property and when he approached the revenue authorities, he was informed of the impugned order. It was further stated that when he attempted to contact his advocate, he was informed that Sri Rudragowda had expired and they were asked to approach one of his colleagues Sri Thippeswamy, who informed regarding the dismissal of the writ petition. It is stated that he is a poor agriculturist and has no legal knowledge. The appellant has not averred as to why she did not keep track of the matter. It is noticed that the impugned order was passed on 16.12.2021 and the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application do not constitute sufficient cause for the purpose of condoning the inordinate delay of 1048 days. 7. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed, both on merits as well as on the ground of delay. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14