- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42331-DB WA No. 1184 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH 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. 1184 OF 2024 (SCST) BETWEEN: SRI C GURUSWAMY S/O SRI. CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUNTIPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT PIN 571 313 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GIRISH M K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT NEELAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS SRI D RAJU S/O DHOLLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT PUNJANAHALLI VILLAGE, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT PIN 571 313 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42331-DB WA No. 1184 of 2024 CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGARA-571 313 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLLEGAL SUB-DIVISION, KOLLEGAL, CHAMARAJANAGARA DIST PIN 571 313 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 23.11.2020 PASSED IN WP No-6568/2017 (SC-ST) BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL 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. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning the order dated 23.11.2020 [impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.6568/2017 (SC/ST). 2. The first respondent had filed the said writ petition assailing the order dated 03.01.2005 passed by respondent No.3 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42331-DB WA No. 1184 of 2024 (Assistant Commissioner, Kollegal Sub-Division) resuming the subject land under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [PTCL Act]. Respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) had unsuccessfully assailed the said decision before respondent No.3 (Deputy Commissioner) and his appeal was also dismissed by an order dated 07.02.2007. 3. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the subject land [Land measuring 4 acres located in Survey No. 242, Beragi Village, Gundalpet Taluk] was granted to the appellant's father late Sri Chikanna, on 30.03.1973. The Saguvalichit with respect to the subject land was issued on 30.07.1975. Thereafter, the appellant and his mother [Smt. Siddamma] sold the subject land by a registered Sale Deed dated 20.06.1978 to Smt. Gowramma. 4. Smt.Gowramma further sold the subject land by a registered Sale Deed dated 22.09.2003 in favour of Neelamma [writ petitioner]. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42331-DB WA No. 1184 of 2024 5. On 03.01.2005, the Assistant Commissioner passed an order for resumption of the subject land, on the ground that the subject land was sold in contravention of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the PTCL Act and accordingly, the subject land was restored in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee [Shri Chikkanna]. 6. As noted above, the appeal against the said order was rejected. However, the writ petitioner succeeded in setting aside the said order before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, which was disposed of by the impugned order. The learned Single Judge found that the action of restoration is hopelessly barred by limitation and latches. There is no dispute that the appellant and legal heirs of late Chikkanna had sold the subject land on a registered Sale Deed executed on 20.06.1978. The action for resumption of the subject land had been initiated in the year 2004, more than 26 years after the subject land has been alienated. Learned Single Judge following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI v/s STATE of KARNATAKA: [(2020) 14 SCC 232] and in the case of MR. VIVEK M. HINDUJA AND OTHERS V. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42331-DB WA No. 1184 of 2024 MR.ASHWATHA AND OTHERS: 2019 Kar.L.J.819 (SC), allowed the said writ petition. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that although the action for resumption had been initiated after more than two and a half decades, the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply for initiating such action and for violation of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act. He submitted that Section 5 of the PTCL Act was amended and Clause (c) was inserted in sub Section (1) of Section (5) of the PTCL Act, expressly stating that there shall be no limitation of time to invoke the provisions of the PTCL Act. He contended that in view of the statutory amendment, action for resumption of land alienated in violation of the provisions of PTCL Act could be initiated at any time. 8. However, the learned counsel fairly states that the said issue is covered by a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. GOURAMMA ALIAS GANGAMMA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI [Writ Appeal No.100101/ 2024] decided on 29.07.2024. The Division Bench of this Court - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42331-DB WA No. 1184 of 2024 had noticed the amendment to Section 5 of the PTCL Act and observed as under: 4.6 However, the aspects which emerged in light of the law laid down in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra), vis-à- vis the amendment in Section 5 and the situation obtained, came to be dealt with by the coordinate bench of this Court at Dharwad in Smt. Gouramma alias Gangamma vs. Deputy Commissioner, Haveri, which was Writ Appeal No.100101 of 2024 decided on 29th July 2024. 4.6.1 After noticing the amendment in Section 5, the division bench observed thus, in para 3(d), "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 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." 4.6.2 It was observed that in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra), did not speak of limitation period, but focused on the long lapse of time in making the application for restitution of the land, by quoting paragraph 8 above from the said decision, the division bench then held as per para 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42331-DB WA No. 1184 of 2024 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." 9. In the case of SMT. M.MANJULA AND OTHERS Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS: NC 2024:KHC:51015-DB, this Court had noted the decision in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI as well AS SMT. GOURAMMA ALIAS GANGAMMA VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI (supra) and held that the restoration of land could not be permitted after 12 years. 10. We may note that the present appeal is filed after an inordinate delay of 856 days. The appellant has sought to explain the said delay on the ground that he became aware of the impugned order only after the opposite party had moved the revenue authorities for change in revenue entries. However, the appellant has not indicated any date or month in which he - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42331-DB WA No. 1184 of 2024 became aware of the impugned order. There is also no explanation as to why he had not kept track of the proceedings of the petition. The appellant merely states that advocate had not informed him of the impugned order. The appellant further states that he was unable to contact his advocate after the Corona pandemic. We are unable to accept that the appellant has set out any credible explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the present appeal. 11. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed both on account of limitation as well as on merits. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29