- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49623-DB RP No. 170 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN REVIEW PETITION NO. 170 OF 2025 IN WRIT APPEAL No.115 OF 2024 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SONNAMMA W/O. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 2. SRI C. N. AMBAREESH S/O. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 3. SMT. C.N. RATHNAMMA D/O. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 54YEARS 4. SMT. C. N. ANITHA D/O. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 5. SMT. NAGAMANI D/O. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS PETITIONER No.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT: CHINNAPURA VILLAGE VAKKALERI HOBLI Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49623-DB RP No. 170 of 2025 KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 137 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI DASAPPA B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MUNIVENKATAPPA S/O. LATE HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO. 17 CHOWDESHWARI NILAYA LAKE ROAD, BYRASANDRA C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST BENGALURU - 560 093 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101 5. THE TAHSILDAR KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101 …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION BY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2023 MADE IN WRIT PETITION No. 24416/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL No.115/2024. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49623-DB RP No. 170 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The review petitioners have filed the above captioned review petition seeking review of the order dated 23.01.2025, whereby the writ appeal being W.A.No.115/2024 (SC-ST) preferred by the appellants (review petitioners) was dismissed. 2. The record indicates that the review petition suffered from various objections raised by the Registry and the review petitioners were given ample opportunities to cure the same. The record indicates that this petition was placed before the Court as the review petitioners had not cured the defects despite being given five opportunities to do so. We find that the objections included non payment of court fee amongst other objections. Since the review petitioners have failed to cure the defects despite ample opportunity, the present review petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. Notwithstanding the above, we have also examined the contents of the review petition. It is the review petitioners' case that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49623-DB RP No. 170 of 2025 the order dated 23.01.2025 disposing of the WA.No.115/2024 is required to be reviewed as this Court had not taken note of the amendment to the Karnataka Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) (Amendment) Act, 2023 [PTCL Act]. By virtue of the said amendment Section 5 of the PTCL Act was amended by introducing clauses (c) and (d) in subsection (1) of Section 5 of the Act, providing that there would be no limitation of time to invoke the provisions of the PTCL Act. Additionally, clause (d) was introduced to provide that clause (c), i.e., Section 5(1)(c) would apply to all cases pending before all the competent authorities and all courts of law adjudicating the cases under the said section. 4. In the present case, the subject land measuring one (01) acre falling in Survey No.14, Chinnapura Village, Vakkaleri Hobli, Kolar Taluk and District was granted in favour of one Sri. Narayanappa, s/o Byrappa on 02.02.1980. The review petitioners, (appellants in WA.No.115/2024), are the legal heirs of the original grantee. Sri. Narayanappa has sold the land by way of a registered deed 17.08.1995, in favour of the father of respondent No.1. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49623-DB RP No. 170 of 2025 same was registered with the Senior Sub-Registrar, Kolar on 29.09.1995. 5. After the demise of Narayanappa, the review petitioners filed an application for restoration of the land in 2014, which was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub-Division (Respondent No.4) in terms of an order dated 10.09.2020. Respondent No.1, the heir of the purchaser, had appealed the order dated 10.09.2020 before the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District (Respondent No.3) which was dismissed on 31.10.2022. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 had filed a writ petition, which was WP.No.24416/2022 (SC-ST), which was allowed in terms of the order dated 04.07.2023. The learned Single Judge had noted that there was a delay of eighteen (18) years in filing the application for restoration of land and allowed the writ petition essentially on two grounds. First, that there was a delay of 18 years in filing the application for restoration and second that the grant certificate was under Form No.1, which was the title document and therefore the provisions of the PTCL Act were not applicable. The learned Single Judge has also referred to the decision of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49623-DB RP No. 170 of 2025 Supreme Court in B.K. Muniraju v. State of Karnataka in support of the said view. 6. The review petitioners had filed an appeal challenging the judgment dated 04.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge. The said appeal was dismissed by the judgment dated 23.01.2025 as the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court concurred with the decision of the learned Single Judge on both grounds as noted above. 7. The question whether clauses (c) and (d) as introduced in Section 5(1) of the PTCL Act would absolve the applicants of the consequences of inordinate delay, was considered by the Co- ordiante Bench of this Court in Smt. Gouramma @ Gangamma V. The Deputy Commissioner, Haveri and others : NC: 2024 : KHC-D:10666-DB : WA No.100101/2024 decided on 29.07.2024. After noticing the amendments to Section 5 of the Act, which is relied upon by the review petitioners, the court had held as under : "The Amendment Act that is made applicable with retrospective effect is only a duplication of the existing legal position. Such duplication happened even in English legislative history, hardly needs to be mentioned. The question of delay is a matter of limitation which this statute is silent about. Clauses (c) and (d), now introduced to Section 5(1) of the Act, do not bring any change in the statutory scheme. At the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49623-DB RP No. 170 of 2025 most, they are declaratory of what the statute has been all through, so far as the limitation period is concerned. Nobody disputes that there was no limitation period earlier and there is no limitation period now too. Laches, which would involve a host of factors, pertains to the Domain of Equity." 8. The said view was also followed by another Bench of this Court in Smt. M. Manjula and others v. Deputy Commissioner and others: WA.No.210/2023 (NC:2024:KHC:51015-DB). 9. The Special Leave Petition being SLP.No.19020/2025 preferred against the decision of this Court in Smt. Gouramma @ Gangamma V. The Deputy Commissioner, Haveri and others : NC: 2024 : KHC-D:10666-DB was dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order dated 09.05.2025 in the following terms. "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s). We see no merit in this case which calls for our interference, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed along with pending application(s), if any." 10. In view of the above, we find no grounds to review the order dated 23.01.2025 passed in WA.No.115/2024. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49623-DB RP No. 170 of 2025 11. The review petition is dismissed, both on account of failure on the part of the review petitioners to cure the defects as well as on merits. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE SD, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3