- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31016 WP No. 17778 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 17778 OF 2026 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O NADIPANNA AGE ABOUT 68 YEARS R/A J.V.COLONY VILLAGE J.THIMMASANDRA POST SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HEGDE S.RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563 101. 3. ASSISATNT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31016 WP No. 17778 of 2026 4. SRI. NADAPANNA S/O SETTINA BOYI AGED MAJOR 5. SRI. VENKATARAVANA S/O NADAPANNA AGED MAJOR RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF VADDARA COLONY KASABA HOBLI THIMMASANDRA POST SRINIVASAPURA TALUK-563 135. RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 ARE LRS OF SETTINA BOYI WHO WAS THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA N., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO OTHER RESPONDENTS IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2009 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR IN RA/SCST/12/2006-07 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER DATED 18.11.1987 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB- DIVISION IN LND/SCST/29/1985-86 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31016 WP No. 17778 of 2026 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. The forefather of respondent nos.4 and 5 is said to be the grantee in respect of 2 acres of land in Survey No.26 of Thimmasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District. The same was granted in favour of one Settina Boyi on 13.05.1965. 2. The said Settina Boyi sold the land granted by way of a registered sale deed dated 07.06.1972 in favour of one Munivenkatamma, who happens to be mother of the petitioner. After a lapse of 14 years, the said original grantee preferred a petition before respondent no.3 under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the PTCL Act') seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 07.06.1972. The same came to be allowed and the sale deed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31016 WP No. 17778 of 2026 was cancelled and the land was ordered to be restored back in favour of the original grantee. 3. The same came to be challenged by the petitioner before respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner, who on 02.09.2009 has disposed the appeal by passing the following order: "ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀeÁPÀj¹zÉ, PɼÀ£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¥Àæ²ßvÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß JwÛ»r¢zÉ. F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è£À «ªÁ¢vÀ d«Ää£À ¢£ÁAPÀ 02/05/1992 gÀ JgÀqÀ£Éà ¥ÀgÀ¨sÁgÉAiÀÄÄ ¦n¹J¯ï C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1978 PÀ®A 4(2) gÀAvÉ C¹AzsÀĪÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÀ«ÄõÀ£Àgï, PÉÆïÁgÀ G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, PÉÆïÁgÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀgÀ¨sÁgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀÆfðvÀUÉƽ¹ ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À°è "¸ÀPÁðgÀ" JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸À®Ä DzÉò¹zÉ. ªÉÄîÌAqÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ²ÃWÀæ°¦UÁgÀjUÉ GPÀÛ¯ÉÃR£À ¤Ãr ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑ ªÀiÁr¹ ¥ÀjµÀÌj¹ £ÀAvÀgÀ vÉgÉzÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ 02/09/2009 gÀAzÀÄ WÉÆö¸À¯ÁVzÉ." 4. As can be seen from the same, respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner while upholding the order of canceling the sale deed executed, has directed resumption of the land in favour of the State. Thereafter, it is submitted that, respondent no.5 has preferred another application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, bearing No.PTCL/33/2012 before respondent no.3 for restoration of the land, which is allowed in his favour. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31016 WP No. 17778 of 2026 5. The petitioner herein is said to have filed an appeal before respondent no.2 in this regard. 6. Now the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the impugned orders dated 18.11.1987 passed by respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner and order dated 02.09.2009 passed by respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner. 7. It is seen that there is an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in challenging the aforementioned impugned orders. There is delay of around 16 years in challenging the impugned order passed by respondent no.2. The reason assigned by the petitioner is that she did not challenge the impugned order passed by respondent no.2 because respondent no.5 initiated fresh proceedings before respondent no.3. The said submission is unacceptable. 8. By virtue of the impugned order passed by respondent no.2, both the petitioner as well as respondent nos.4 and 5 have lost their rights over the property concerned. The property now vests with the State. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31016 WP No. 17778 of 2026 9. Under the said circumstances, respondent no.5 could not have maintained a fresh proceedings before respondent no.3- Assistant Commissioner, and respondent no.3 could not have passed the order restoring the land in favour of respondent no.5. It is unfortunate that the State has not properly defended its case before the Assistant Commissioner. At this juncture, learned AGA upon instructions, submits that adequate steps will be taken to defend the interest of the State before the Deputy Commissioner (respondent no.2) wherein the appeal filed by petitioner is said to have been pending. Thus, under the circumstances, pendency of proceedings before respondent nos.2 and 3 subsequent to passing of the impugned order at Annexure-A herein cannot be a valid ground for not challenging the same before this Court within the reasonable time by the petitioner. 10. The petitioner has relied upon the order passed by this Court in Srinivas Murthy, Thru. L.R.S. vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapura reported in 2021 (2) AKR 730, wherein, paragraph nos.11 and 12, it has been held as under: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31016 WP No. 17778 of 2026 "11. The application for restoration has been filed by the legal representatives of the original grantee after a lapse of 16 years which definitely is an inordinate delay. There is absolutely no reason offered explaining the said delay. On the other hand, the petitioners have given a plausible explanation for the delay of four years caused in filing the writ petition. The learned single Judge on the ground that the writ petition is filed after a delay of more than four years has refused to consider the merits of the matter and has dismissed the writ petition only on the ground of delay. In our considered opinion, having regard to the explanation offered by the petitioners, delay of four years caused in filing the writ petition ought to have been condoned which compared to the delay of 16 years caused by respondents 3 and 4 in filing the application for restoration of the land in question, is much reasonable. The learned single Judge was not justified in refusing to consider the writ petition on its merits and dismissing the same on the ground of delay. 12. The application for restoration having been filed by respondents 3 and 4 after a delay of more than 16 years from the date from which the PTCL Act came into force, the judgment of the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi's case (supra) and Vivek M.Hinduja's case (supra) are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner impugned in the writ petition are liable to be quashed solely on the ground that the restoration application has been filed after an inordinate delay of 16 years. Under the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31016 WP No. 17778 of 2026 circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the learned single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order: Writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 12.01.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.5604/2018 is set aside and consequently, the orders dated 04.03.2011 and 23.12.2013 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, respectively, are also quashed." 11. The aforementioned judgment does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as the facts mentioned therein are different from the facts mentioned in the present case. 12. In the said case, there was an inordinate delay on the part of the original grantee in challenging the same. Orders were passed in favour of the original grantee. That was challenged by the petitioner therein after a lapse of around 4 years. Under the said circumstances, this Court has come to the conclusion that given the delay in challenging the original sale by the grantee, the delay in filing the writ petition by the petitioner needs to be condoned. In the instant case, there is a delay of 16 years in challenging the impugned order dated 02.09.2009 passed by respondent no.2. Pendency of another - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31016 WP No. 17778 of 2026 proceedings at the behest of respondent no.5 as mentioned above cannot be a ground for the petitioner to seek condonation of delay for a period of 16 years while challenging the order which culminated in holding that the petitioner has no right over the property concerned. 13. As the delay of around 16 years in challenging the impugned order passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) is not adequately explained by the petitioner, the writ petition is hereby dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3