- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51864-DB WA No. 1833 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1833 OF 2025 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI HANUMANTHA BHOVI S/O LATE SRI HANUMANTHA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 2. SRI RAMAPPA S/O LATE SRI HANUMANTHA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 3. SRI DURGAPPA S/O LATE SRI HANUMANTHA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ALL ARE R/O. SOMINAKOPPA VILLAGE SHIMOGA KASABA HOBLI SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 216 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA DISTRICT SHIMOGA - 577 201 Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51864-DB WA No. 1833 of 2025 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA SUB-DIVISION SHIMOGA - 577 201 3. SRI L.R. SATHYANARAYANA RAO S/O SRI RANGAPPA MAJOR 4. SRI L.R. RAMALINGA RAO S/O SRI RANGAPPA MAJOR RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE R/O DURGIGUDI EXTENSION SHIMOGA - 577 201 5. SRI MANJUNATHA SHETTY S/O SRI JAGANNATHA SHETTY MAJOR R/O HEMMAKKI VILLAGE THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 424 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & 2) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.09.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU IN W.P. No. 38810/2014 (SC-ST) DISMISSING THE SAME ONLY ON THE QUESTION OF DELAY AND THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 26.06.2014 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN CASE No. SC/ST 6/2013-14 VIDE ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION AND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51864-DB WA No. 1833 of 2025 THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2005 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SHIMOGA SUBDIVISION, SHIMOGA IN CASE No. PTCL/CR/66/2006-07 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL. 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 appellants have filed the present intra-court appeal impugning an order dated 21.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.38810/2014(SC/ST). The appellants had filed the said petition impugning an order dated 26.06.2014 passed by respondent No.1 (The Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga), whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants against the order 16.09.2008 passed respondent No.2 (The Assistant Commissioner, Shivamogga Sub-Division, Shivamogga) was rejected. The appellants claim that the land measuring 14.23 acres falling in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51864-DB WA No. 1833 of 2025 Survey No.45 of Sominakoppa, Shivamogga Taluk, was granted in favour of their father, Sri. Hanumantha Bhovi, in the year 1934- 1935. The grant was subject to the condition that the said grantee would not alienate the subject lands for a period of twenty years. It is stated that after the said period had expired, the mother of the appellants, widow of late Sri. Hanumantha Bhovi, sold the subject land to different persons. 2. The appellants filed an application in the year 2006 for restoration of the said subject lands under the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [PTCL Act]. 3. The said application was rejected by respondent No.2 by an order dated 16.09.2005. And, the appeal filed by the appellants against the said order was dismissed on 26.06.2024. 4. It is material to note that the said appeal was filed after a delay of five years and that too was considered as one of the grounds for rejecting the same. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51864-DB WA No. 1833 of 2025 5. The writ petition preferred by the appellants was dismissed in terms of impugned order on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the application for restoration. The learned Single Judge had noted that the first alienation of the granted land was on 03.08.1959, which was almost twenty years prior to the PTCL Act coming into force. The appellants had filed their application twenty-seven years after the PTCL Act had come into force, which is approximately forty-seven years after the first alienation. 6. The learned Single Judge following the decisions of Supreme Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and another : 2018 (1) Kar. L.R. 5 (SC) and Vivek M. Hinduja and others v. Ashwatha and others : 2018 (1) Kar.L.R. 176 (SC), rejected the said petition. 7. We also consider it apposite to refer to the subsequent amendment to Section 5 of PTCL Act by virtue of the Karnataka Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, whereby clause (c) and (d) in Section 5 (1) of the PTCL Act was introduced. The said clauses are set out below: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51864-DB WA No. 1833 of 2025 5. Resumption and restitution of granted lands.—(1) ***** (c) notwithstanding anything contained in any law, there shall be no limitation of time to invoke the provisions of this Act. (d) the provisions of clause (c) shall apply to all cases pending before all the competent authorities and all Courts of Law adjudicating the cases under this section.] 8. The import of the said clauses was considered by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Gouramma @ Gangamma v. The Deputy Commissioner, Haveri and others : NC: 2024: KHC-D:10666-DB, and the court held that unreasonable delay could not be countenanced. 9. In the aforesaid view, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. We also note that in the present case the granted land has been alienated to the appellants prior to the PTCL Act coming into force. 10. It is also not in dispute that the granted land was sold after the period of restriction (twenty-years) had expired. In this view as well, we do not find any merit in the appellants’ claim. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51864-DB WA No. 1833 of 2025 11. We also note that the present appeal has been filed after a delay of 1327 days. We find no credible reason for the said delay. 12. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, both on merits and on account of delay. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE SD, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15