- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30611-DB WA No. 606 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 606 OF 2024 (SCST) BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATH S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O SINGAPURA VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 097 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHASTRI GANAPATI SHRIPAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BEHIND "KANDAYA BHAVAN", K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, "KANDAYA BHAVAN", K.G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009 Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30611-DB WA No. 606 of 2024 3. SMT PADMAVATHI W/O SRI M.V. MOHAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O NO.752, 2ND MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU-560 054 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R2, SRI. H.P. LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.05.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.5526/2021 BY ALLOWING THE ABOUVE APPEAL WITH COSTS 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 MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5526/2021, whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30611-DB WA No. 606 of 2024 2. The abridged facts of the case are as under: The land bearing Sy.No.109/P-10, measuring an extent of 1 acre, situated at Singapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, was granted to appellant's grandfather Thimmaiah on 17-10-1977 and accordingly saguvali chit was issued in his favour on 19-04-1978. But the appellant's grandfather-Thimmaiah, in contravention of provisions of the Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short "PTCL Act") and also by violating conditions of grant, sold the subject land in favour of respondent No.3 through Sale Deed dated 17-07- 1995. Later, in the month of October 2013, through some other person the appellant came to know that the subject land was sold in favour of respondent No.3. Hence the appellant filed petition before respondent No.2, who has passed the order restoring the subject land in favour of the appellant. Subsequently, the appeal was filed by respondent No.3 challenging the order passed by respondent No.2 before respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 passed the order dated 08-01-2020 setting aside the order of restoration passed by respondent No.2 in favour the appellant. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30611-DB WA No. 606 of 2024 3. Later, challenging the order dated 08-01-2020 passed by the respondent No.1, the appellant approached this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 25-05-2023 on the ground of delay. The said order is challenged in this appeal by the appellant. 4. We have heard the learned counsel Sri. Shastri Ganapati Shripad for the appellant, the learned AGA Sri.M.N. Sudev Hegde for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel Sri. H.P. Leeladhar for respondent No.3. 5. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has observed in para Nos.4 & 5 as under: "4. In the present case on hand, the authorities granted the petition land in question vide order dated 19.04.1978 in favour of petitioners grandfather. The original grantee during his lifetime, alienated the petition land in favour of respondent No.3 under registered sale deed dated 17.07.1995. The petitioner, who is the grandson of the original grantee, has filed an application seeking restoration of land. The said application was filed on 15.10.2013. Therefore, this - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30611-DB WA No. 606 of 2024 Court would find that there is inordinate delay of 18 years. 5. In the present case on hand, there is a delay of 18 years in initiating action. The Assistant Commissioner has not examined the delay and laches in moving the application. The judgments cited supra clearly indicates that on the ground of gross delay and laches, the application made by the grantee or by the legal heirs under Section 5 of the PTCL Act requires to be rejected. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment has held that where statute does not provide for limitation, the authorities and State must act consciously and if the process of invoking the provisions of statute is delayed and is initiated after long lapse of time, the delay by itself would act as an impediment. Thus, without exception and coming across various rules of law, the Apex Court has categorically stated the law in respect of exercise of power/jurisdiction under statute where no limitation is stipulated. The law on the point of delay and laches to invoke the provisions of PTCL Act is well settled by catena of judgments." 6. As could be gathered from records, the subject land granted in favour of the appellant's grandfather in the year 1978 and he alienated the said land in favour of respondent - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30611-DB WA No. 606 of 2024 No.3 in the year 1995. However, the application for restoration was filed by the grandson of original grantee-appellant in the year 2013 i.e., after lapse of 18 years. As such there is an inordinate delay in questioning the said order. This aspect is dealt in detail by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition by relying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER - (2020) 14 SCC 232. The law laid down in this judgment has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgment i.e., SHARADHAMMA AND ANOTHER VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS in SLP (C) No.34332/2010, wherein in paragraph 6, it is observed as under: "6. This Court has carefully gone through the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka. In the present case, the land was sold to Shri Ranga, predecessor-in- title of the appellants in the year 1946-47 and a Saguvalli Chit was confirmed on 12.05.1954. The land was sold by Shri Ranga on 20.06.1969 and the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed on 06.06.1992. In the considered opinion of this Court, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30611-DB WA No. 606 of 2024 the application preferred in the matter under the PTCL Act was hopelessly barred by delay and latches, as has been held in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and Another (2020) 14 Supreme Court Cases 232, in paragraphs 7 and 8, as under: 7. Shri R.S. Hedge appearing for the appellant urged several grounds. It is contended by Shri Hegde that proceedings are void for non-joinder of the first purchaser of the land. It is further contended that the non-alienation period i.e., period for which Kriyappa could not have transferred the land was not 15 years but was 10 years under the Rules of the land and, therefore, transfer was legal having been made after 10 years. However, the applicant had not produced the original grant, and, therefore, it was not possible for the purpose to come to a conclusion that the transfer was in breach of the non alienation period. We, however, find that one of the points raised on behalf of the appellant deserves acceptance. That point is that the application for restoration of the land was made by the heir of Kriyappa after unreasonably long period, i.e. 25 years from the Act came into force. Section 4 of the Act itself has a ubiquitous effect in it, annulling the transfer of granted land "made either before or - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30611-DB WA No. 606 of 2024 after the commencement of the Act." as null and void. The Act does not specify how much before the commencement of the Act. Thus on a plain and critical reading of the Act, it seems that it covers proceedings made in time before the Act was enacted. However, we are not called upon to deal with the reasonableness of this provision and we do not propose to say anything on this. The validity of the Act has been upheld by a judgment of this Court in Machegowda and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., 1984(3) SCC 301. 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 the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav & Ors. vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors., 2017(6) SCALE 459 and also in the case of Ningappa vs. Dy. Commissioner & Ors. (C.A. No. 3131 of 2007, decided on 14.07.2011) reiterated a settled position in law that whether Statute provided for - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30611-DB WA No. 606 of 2024 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 the 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 vs. Deputy Commissioner, 2000 (1) Karnataka Law Journal, 523, Maddurappa vs. State of Karnataka, 2006 (4) Karnataka Law Journal, 303 and G. Maregouda vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga and Ors, 2000(2) Kr. L.J.Sh. N.4B holding that there is no - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30611-DB WA No. 606 of 2024 limitation provided by Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, an application can be made at any time, are overruled. Order accordingly." 7. Applying the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. Hence, interference with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for. Accordingly, writ appeal lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32