- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB WA No. 1035 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1035 OF 2025 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 2. SMT. AKKAYAMMA D/O. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 3. SRI. RAVI KUMAR S/O. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT UGANAVADI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, PIN CODE-562 110. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB WA No. 1035 of 2025 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BEHIND KANDHAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION, 2ND FLOOR, KANDHAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. 4. TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH ADDL. TALUK, NOW AT YELAHANKA TALUK, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064. 5. SRI. VENKATESHAPPA S/O. LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, 6. SRI. SURESH S/O. VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 7. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI D/O. VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 8. SRI. MANJUNATHA S/O. VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESPONDENTS No.4 TO 8 R/AT NAGADASANAHALLI VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH ADDL. TALUK, BENGALURU-560064. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB WA No. 1035 of 2025 9. SRI. CHIKKABASAPPA S/O. CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT RAJAKUNTE VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH ADDL. TALUK, BENGALURU-560 064. 10. SRI. PAPAIAH S/O. SONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NAGADASANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH ADDL. TALUK, BENGALURU-560 064. 11. SRI. EERANNA S/O. BYANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NAGADASANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH ADDL. TALUK, BENGALURU-560 064. 12. SRI. NARASIMHAIAH S/O. CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1062, NAGAPPA BLOCK, SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU-560 021. 13. SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O. P. RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 14. SRI. RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O. PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB WA No. 1035 of 2025 15. SRI. RAMESHA S/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 16. SRI. SANDEEP S/O. RAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 17. YUKTHA D/O. RAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, No.14 TO 17 ARE R/AT NAGADASANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH ADDL. TALUK, BENGALURU-560 064. 18. SMT. SUNANDA D/O RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT HONNAGHATTA VILLAGE, KODIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK-561 203 19. SRI.N.R.BYREGOWDA S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 20. KUMARI. BHAVYA SHREE D/O BYREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS REPTD BY HER FATHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN R-19 21. SMT. PUSHPALATHA D/O RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB WA No. 1035 of 2025 22. SMT. SHANTHA D/O RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS No.19 TO 22 ARE R/AT NAGADASANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU 560064 23. SMT. C.H. AMEERUNISSA D/O VEERAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.14, 1ST B CROSS, MUTTAPPA BLOCK BENGALURU 560 032 24. SMT. LAKSHMI RAO W/O DR.SREEPATHI RAO AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO.392, NO.12TH A MAIN, A SECTOR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU 560064 25. SMT. NOORUNNISA BEGUM W/O K.RAHEEM AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.69, 12TH 'A' CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGARA, BENGALURU 560 064 26. SRI.KRISHNA KUMAR SINDE S/O LATE SHANKAR RAO SINDE AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.129, 9-10TH CROSS MIDDLE MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU 560 003 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB WA No. 1035 of 2025 27. SMT. D.BABAMMA WO D.PULLAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 28. SMT.K.C.BABAMMA W/O C.NAGUR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.3/408 SAI KUTEERA ROAD, PRODHATHUR, KADAPA DISTRICT ANDRA PRADESH 516 360 29. SRI.P.RAVANAIAH S/O LATE PONDAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.58, ISHAK EXTENSION, PUTTENAHALLI MOUNT CARLO BEHIND, YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU 560 064 30. SMT.V.SUBBALAKSHMI W/O V.VENKATESHWARALU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT 1ST MAIN ROAD, VENKATALA, NEAR BHUVAN COLLEGE, MARUTHI NAGARA, YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU 560 064. 31. SRI. Y. PRASANNA MURTHY S/O LATE Y PAKEERALAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO 12/252. DHANARAJU ROAD. KADAPA ROAD, MAIDUKURU, KADAPA DISTRICT ANDRA PRADESH - 516 360 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB WA No. 1035 of 2025 32. SMT. M.MAHALAKSHMI W/O UDAYA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.32, 3RD CROSS, 8TH MAIN ROAD, SADANANDHA NAGAR BENGALURU 560 038 33. SMT.R.PREMA KUMARI W/O M.RAGHUPATHI AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT NO.15, JCO COLONY, 2ND CROSS, VIVEKANANDA NAGARA, MS NAGARA POST, BENGALURU 560033 34. SRI.DEEPESH YERAHALLI KENGE GOWDA S/O T.KENGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.97, 1ST CROSS, SHARADA NAGARA, SUBRMANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 061 35. SRI.E.RAMAN S/O POONU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 36. SRI.PRAMOOZ S/O CHANDRAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.1657, 1ST FLOOR, PRASANTHA NAGARA, T-DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU 560 057 37. SRI.N.B.SUDENDRA RAO LATE S.H. BHUJAGENDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB WA No. 1035 of 2025 R/AT NO.166-Y, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 4TH PHASE, 7TH BLOCK, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. 38. B.SADASHIVA REDDY S/O LATE B.LINGA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.2ND CROSS, KRISHNAPPA EXTENSION, SANJAY NAGARA, BENGALURU - 94. 39. SMT. M MANJULA W/O SRI MANJUNATHAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RA/T NO. 16, NEW NO. 8/1 6TH CROS MODI GARDEN J C NAGARA BENGALURU 560 006 40. SRI. JALAPATHI SRINIVASALU S/O BALAKANAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT QUARTERS NO. P-124 VASANTHA ENCLAVE PRTC J C NAGAR BENGALURU 560 006 41. M/S REPCO HOMES FINANCE LTD (RHFL) REGISTERED OFFICE AT REPCO TOWER OFFICE ADDRESS AT NO. 109 1ST FLOOR, MITTAL TOWER M G ROAD BENGALURU 560 001 REPTD BY ITS SRI. RAGHU 42. SRI KANAKARA MALLESHWARA REDDY S/O MALLA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB WA No. 1035 of 2025 R/AT NO. 42, 5TH CROSS, K -APEX SB , KNG HOUSE MODI GARDEN, J C NAGARA BENGALURU 560 006 43. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI W/O B.H.JAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.5, PWD, TEACHERS QUARTERS JAKKUR, BENGALURU 560 064 44. SRI.P.SUDHAKAR S/O GANGAMMA.P. AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.11B, 3RD MAIN ROAD, VINAYAKA NAGARA, IAF POST, BENGALURU 560 063 45. SRI.D.SANTHEEL KUMAR S/O LATE R. DAMODHARAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO. BN BSF QUARTERS, NO.1, 63, STS BSF, YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU 560 063 46. SMT. CHANDRAKALA W/O LATE MALLIKARJUNAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS BRANCH OFFICE NO.1, TUMKUR 572 102 47. SRI.SURENDRA S/O JYOTHI MALA KONDAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.2270, MIG 3RD STAGE, 21ST CROSS, YELAHANKA TOWN BENGALURU- 560 064 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA FOR R1 TO R4) - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB WA No. 1035 of 2025 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN WP NO.28003/2023 DATED 20/12/2024, BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND ETC. 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. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application ‒ I.A No.1/2025, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 28003 of 2023 (SC/ST). The appellants had filed the said petition impugning an order dated 25.08.2011 passed by respondent No.3 (Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub- Division), dismissing the petition filed by Respondents Nos.5 to 8 for restoration of the land measuring 1 acre and 38 guntas falling in Survey No.53 of Nagadasanahalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB WA No. 1035 of 2025 [the subject land]. The appellants also impugned an order dated 17.03.2023 passed by respondent No. 2 [Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District], whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants against the order dated 25.08.2011 is rejected. The appellants claim that the subject land was granted to their ancestor, Uganavadi Muniswami alias Muniswamappa [the original grantee], on 22.10.1940. The original grantee had sold the subject land under a sale deed dated 12.07.1951 to respondent no. 9 [Sri Chikkabasappa]. He, in turn, had sold the subject property to respondent No.10 [Sri Papaiah] under the sale deed dated 14.03.1960. Sri Papaiah thereafter, sold the Subject Land to respondent No.11 [Sri Eeranna] under the sale deed dated 08.05.1960. 3. The original grantee expired on 06.05.1966. 4. Thereafter, Sri Eeranna sold the Subject Land to respondent No.12 [Sri Narasimhaiah] under a sale deed dated 02.06.1970. Sri Narasimhaiah further sold the subject land to respondent No.13 [Smt. Muniyamma] under the sale deed dated 10.11.1975. It is stated that respondent Nos.13 to 22 sold the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB WA No. 1035 of 2025 subject land to respondent No.23 [Smt. C.H.Ameerunissa] under a sale deed dated 16.01.2009. 5. Respondent Nos. 5 to 8, who are claiming through the original grantee, filed a petition for resumption of the subject land before the Assistant Commissioner sometime in the year 2010. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the said application by an order dated 25.08.2011 inter alia on the ground that the applicants had not submitted the original documents pertaining to the grant of land in favour of the original grantee. The Assistant Commissioner held that in the absence of the original documents, the question whether the Subject Land is required to be resumed could not be adjudicated. 6. Aggrieved by the said decision, the wife and children of respondent No.5 (or the daughter-in-law and grand children of the original grantee) preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. However, the said appeal was also dismissed by an order dated 17.03.2023. The learned Deputy Commissioner noted that the application for resumption had been filed almost 59 years after the first alienation and 31 years after the commencement of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB WA No. 1035 of 2025 (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [PTCL Act]; thus, it would not be appropriate to entertain the appeal. 7. The learned Single Judge concurred with the said view and dismissed the appellants' writ petition. 8. Undisputedly, the question whether the application for resumption of granted land filed after an unreasonably excessive delay is required to be entertained, is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court held in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka1 that an inordinate delay in filing an application for the restoration of land that was allegedly alienated in violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act could not be condoned. 9. The provisions of Section 5 of the PTCL Act were amended by the introduction of clauses (c) and (d), by virtue of Act No.30 of 2023. The import of the said amendment came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Gouramma @ Gangamma Vs. The Deputy Commissioner and others2 and the Court observed as under: 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 2 2024:KHC-D:10666-DB - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB WA No. 1035 of 2025 "(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. (e) Nekkanti supra does not speak of “limitation period” at all. What it discusses is, the long lapse of time between alienation of granted land and the filing of claim for its resumption. Observations occurring in para 8 of the decision lend support to this view: “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 v. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs., (2017) 6 Scale 459 and also in the case of Ningappa v. Dy. Commissioner (C.A. No. 3131 of 2007, decided on 14.07.2011) reiterated a settled position in law that whether Statute provided for 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. 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 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB WA No. 1035 of 2025 High Court, namely, R. Rudrappa v. Deputy Commissioner, (2000) 1 Karnataka Law Journal, 523, Maddurappa v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 4 Karnataka Law Journal, 303 and G. Maregouda v. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga, (2000) 2 Kr. L.J.Sh. N.4B holding that there is no limitation provided by Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, an application can be made at any time, are overruled. …..” (emphasis is ours) Apparently, the law declared by the Apex Court in the above case has not been altered by the subject amendment, even in the least. (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 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. (g) There is a marked difference between ‘delay & laches’ that operate in equity and ‘limitation & delay’ that obtain in law." 10. Considering that there is no dispute in the present case that there is an unreasonable delay in filing the application for resumption, we find no fault with the decisions of the Deputy - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9952-DB WA No. 1035 of 2025 Commissioner as well as the learned Single Judge in dismissing the action instituted for the restoration of the subject land. 11. We may also note that the subject land was the subject matter of two sale and purchase transactions even prior to the demise of the original grantee. Given the history of transactions, the action for restoration of the subject land would also be barred by laches. 12. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE Vmb List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4