- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40989-DB W.A. No.1539/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.1539/2023 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: SMT. MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA @ BUDUGAPPA R/AT BILLAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE 562 157. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. D.A. SHIVAKUMAR, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE 560 009. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA 561 203. 3. SMT. RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS W/O MUNIDODDAPPA R/AT THAMMENAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 562 110. 4. SMT. SIDDIQUE NAJANIS AGED 46 YEARS D/O SYED HUSSAIN AHAMED R/AT DANDI COMPLEX Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40989-DB W.A. No.1539/2023 BUDIGERE ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 5. SMT. MUNITHAYAMMA AGED 70 YEARS W/O MUNISHAMAPPA R/AT POOJANAHALLI VILLAGE KADABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 6. SRI. B. SRINIVAS AGED 60 YEARS S/O T. BYRANNA R/AT IRIGENAHALLI VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 7. SRI. MUNIYAPPA AGED 35 YEARS S/O KRISHNAPPA R/AT THAMMENAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 & R2) - - - THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN W.P.NO.2284/2022 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE BY ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2021 IN NO.LND/SC-ST(A)/55/2020 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT - DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, AS PER ANNEXURE-B BY UPHOLDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA IN CASE NO.PTCL.SR.(De) 09/2013-14, DATED 21.10.2020 AS PER ANNEXURE - C & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40989-DB W.A. No.1539/2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2284/2022. 2. Sri.Shivakumar D.A., learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has committed a grave error in appreciating the fact and law. It is submitted that the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') does not stipulate the time limit for filing an application for restoration of land. It is further submitted that the sale by the original grantee is without prior permission from the Government which has been rightly appreciated by the Authorities and the sale in question being void, the order of restoration passed by the respondent No.2- Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur. However, the order of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40989-DB W.A. No.1539/2023 restoration has been wrongfully set aside by the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner and the order of the Deputy Commissioner has been erroneously upheld by the learned Single Judge. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 3. Per contra, Smt.Pramodhini Kishan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the order of the learned Single Judge and seeks to dismiss the appeal. 4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Government Advocate the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on both sides. 5. The records indicate that one Sri.Mallappa was granted land on 14.11.1956 and the appellant is claiming as a great grand daughter of the grantee. The records also indicate that the respondent No.3 purchased the land in question from the original grantee under the registered sale deed dated 19.09.1994 and thereafter, the respondent No.3 in turn sold 20 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40989-DB W.A. No.1539/2023 guntas out of 2 acres in favour of respondent No.5 on 30.08.2002 and the children of the respondent No.3 have sold 1 acre in favour of the respondent No.4 on 13.06.2005. The respondent No.4 sold 1 acre of land in favour of respondent No.6 under the registered sale deed dated 25.07.2016. The appellant initiated the proceedings under the provisions of the Act in the year 2013-14 which is more than 19 years from the date of sale. The learned Single Judge, considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER1, VIVEK M.HINDUJA Vs. M.ASWATHA2, CHHEDI LAL YADAV Vs. HARI KISHORE YADAV3 and NINGAPPA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS4 held that the order of restoration passed by the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner is beyond 19 years from the date of sale, the initiation of proceedings is not within the reasonable time, the property has changed the hands and proceeded to dismiss the writ petition by affirming the order of 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 2 (2019) 1 Kant.L.J. 819 SC 3 (2018) 12 SCC 527 4 (2020) 14 SCC 236 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40989-DB W.A. No.1539/2023 the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner. We do not find any error calling for interference in this intra Court appeal. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33