- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503672025 NC: 2026:KHC:49079-DB WA No. 1233 of 2025 C/W WA No. 199 of 2025 WA No. 216 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT APPEAL NO.1233 OF 2025 (SC/ST) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.199 OF 2025 (SC/ST) WRIT APPEAL NO.216 OF 2025 (SC/ST) IN W.A. NO.1233/2025 BETWEEN: SRI.N. VENKATARAJU S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, DEAD BY LRs. 1. SMT. N. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE VENKATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.46, SUBHASHNAGARA COLONY, GORAVIGERE, BENGALURU-560 067. 2. KUM. V. SNEHA, D/O. LATE VENKATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.46, SUBHASHNAGARA COLONY, GORAVIGERE, BENGALURU - 560 067. 3. SRI. V. PRABHAS, S/O. LATE VENKATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.46, Digitally signed by C K LATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503672025 NC: 2026:KHC:49079-DB WA No. 1233 of 2025 C/W WA No. 199 of 2025 WA No. 216 of 2025 SUBHASHNAGARA COLONY, GORAVIGERE, BENGALURU - 560 067. 4. SMT. SAROJA, W/O. LATE N. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT DEVANAHALLI, TALLUKU. KANNAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL KARNATAKA-562110. 5. KUM. CHANDINI .N D/O. LATE N. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT DEVANAHALLI, TALLUKU KANNAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL KARNATAKA-562110. 6. SRI. CHANDAN .N S/O. LATE N. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT DEVANAHALLI, TALLUKU, KANNAMANGALA BENGALURU RURAL KARNATAKA-562110. 7. SRI. MUNIYAPPA .K S/O. LATE KADARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT #164, 4TH MAIN ROAD, DOMLUR LAYOUT, BANGALORE- 560071. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GOPALA C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.V. VEDACHALA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL REVENUE SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503672025 NC: 2026:KHC:49079-DB WA No. 1233 of 2025 C/W WA No. 199 of 2025 WA No. 216 of 2025 DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. 4. SRI. L. RAVINDRA, S/O. L. LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI-562 157. BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. 5. SRI. L. MUNISWAMY, S/O. L. LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI-562 157. BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. 6. SRI. L. PARTHA, S/O. L. LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI-562 157. BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. 7. SRI. L. NAVEEN KUMAR, S/O. L.LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI-562 157. BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI A/W SMT. ANANYA RAI, ADVOCATES FOR R-4 TO R-7) - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503672025 NC: 2026:KHC:49079-DB WA No. 1233 of 2025 C/W WA No. 199 of 2025 WA No. 216 of 2025 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 10.01.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.3857/2022 (SC-ST) IN DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION OF THE APPELLANTS AND ETC., IN W.A. NO.199/2025 BETWEEN: SRI. C. MUNIRAJU DEAD BY LR's. SRI. NAGENDRA .M S/O LATE C. MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT GOLAPURA VILLAGE, GUMMANAHALLI-562157 BAGALUR POST, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRIKANTH N.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL REVENUE SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560009 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503672025 NC: 2026:KHC:49079-DB WA No. 1233 of 2025 C/W WA No. 199 of 2025 WA No. 216 of 2025 K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560009. 4. SRI. L. RAVINDRA, S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-562157. 5. SRI L. MUNISWAMY, S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-562157. 6. SRI. L. PARTHA, S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT. SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-562157. 7. SRI. L. NAVEEN KUMAR, S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-562157. SRI. N. VENKATARAJU DEAD BY LR's. 8. SMT. N. VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O LATE VENKATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.46, SUBHASHNAGARA COLONY, GORAVIGERE, BANGALORE-560067. 9. KUM. V. SNEHA, D/O LATE VENKATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503672025 NC: 2026:KHC:49079-DB WA No. 1233 of 2025 C/W WA No. 199 of 2025 WA No. 216 of 2025 R/AT NO.46, SUBHASHNAGARA COLONY, GORAVIGERE, BANGALORE-560067. 10. SRI. V. PRABHAS, S/O LATE VENKATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NO.46, SUBHASHNAGARA COLONY, GORAVIGERE, BANGALORE-560067. 11. SMT. SAROJA W/O LATE N. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT GOLAPURA VILLAGE, GUMMANAHALLI - 562157 BANGALORE POST, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. 12. KUM. CHANDINI D/O LATE N. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT. GOLAPURA VILLAGE, GUMMANAHALLI - 562157 BANGALORE POST, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. 13. SRI. CHANDAN S/O LATE N. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT. GOLAPURA VILLAGE, GUMMANAHALLI - 562157 BANGALORE POST, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. 14. SRI. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE KADIRAPPA, R/AT GOLAPURA VILLAGE, GUMMANAHALLI - 562157 BANGALORE POST, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S. HARISH GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3) - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503672025 NC: 2026:KHC:49079-DB WA No. 1233 of 2025 C/W WA No. 199 of 2025 WA No. 216 of 2025 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 10.01.2025 PASSED IN W.P.NO.3857/2022, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. IN W.A.NO.216/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT GOLAPURA VILLAGE, GUMMANAHALLI - 562157 BANGALORE POST, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. 2. SRI. ANJINAPPA, S/O LATE CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT GOLAPURA VILLAGE, GUMMANAHALLI - 562157 BANGALORE POST, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SRIKANTH N.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL REVENUE SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560009. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503672025 NC: 2026:KHC:49079-DB WA No. 1233 of 2025 C/W WA No. 199 of 2025 WA No. 216 of 2025 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560009. 4. SH. L. RAVINDRA, S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT SANNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-562157. 5. SRI. L. MUNISWAMY, S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-562157. 6. SRI. L. PARTHA, S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-562157. 7. SRI. L. NAVEENKUMAR, S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-562157. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S. HARISH GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 10.01.2025 PASSED IN W.P.NO.3840/2022. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503672025 NC: 2026:KHC:49079-DB WA No. 1233 of 2025 C/W WA No. 199 of 2025 WA No. 216 of 2025 THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellants have filed the present appeals impugning a common order dated 10.01.2025 [impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3840/2022 (SC/ST) c/w Writ Petition No.3857/2022. Writ Appeal Nos.1233/2025 and 199/2025 are preferred by petitioner Nos.1 to 5 and the legal representative of petitioner No.6 in Writ Petition No.3857/2022 respectively. Writ Appeal No.216/2025 is preferred by petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in Writ Petition No.3840/2022. BRIEF FACTS 2. The appellants are the legal heirs of the original grantees of two extents of 04 acres of lands in Sy.No.119 which had been alienated. The appellants seek restoration of the said lands on the ground that the alienation was contrary to the provisions of the - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503672025 NC: 2026:KHC:49079-DB WA No. 1233 of 2025 C/W WA No. 199 of 2025 WA No. 216 of 2025 Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [PTCL Act]. 3. The dispute relates to part of lands falling in Sy No.119 situated at Mahadevapura, Kodigehalli Village, Jala Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk [subject land]. The Government granted lands measuring 04 acres each to Sri Chinnappa and Sri Kadirappa on 13.04.1962 who belonged to scheduled caste. The grant was subject to the condition that the subject land should not be alienated for a period of 15 years. 4. However, in violation of the said condition, Sri Chinnappa sold 02 acres of the subject land in favour of one Sri B.T. Shivakumar, a minor represented by his mother, Kempamma, under a registered sale deed dated 28.10.1966. He sold the remaining 02 acres in favour of Smt. Gowramma under a sale deed dated 25.11.1966. 5. Sri Kadirappa also sold 02 acres of the subject lands in favour of B.T Vijayashankar, a minor who was represented by his mother Kempamma, under a sale deed dated 14.06.1967. He sold the remaining 02 acres of land in favour of G. K.Tamanna under a - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503672025 NC: 2026:KHC:49079-DB WA No. 1233 of 2025 C/W WA No. 199 of 2025 WA No. 216 of 2025 sale deed dated 12.06.1969. The subject land was sold in contravention of the terms of the grant. 6. Thereafter, on 12.11.1982, the entire property granted to Kadirappa was sold by the purchasers to Sri Sundar Raj, M. Nataraj and A.P.Sundar Shekhar. They in turn sold the subject land in favour of Arun Kumar Kanoria and others in the year 1994. 7. Similarly, in the year 1983, the entire property granted to Chinnappa was sold by the purchasers on 25.06.1983 to Sri Sundar Raj, M. Nataraj and A.P. Sundar Shekhar, and they have in turn sold the subject land in favour of Arun Kumar Kanoria and others in the year 1994. 8. On 14.02.2001, the legal heirs of Chinnappa initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Act for resumption of the land granted to Chinnappa on the ground that the subject land has been sold in contravention of the terms of the grant. 9. Similarly, on 14.02.2003, the legal heirs of Sri Kadirappa also initiated proceedings under the Act for resumption and restoration. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the said applications and passed an order dated 10.06.2003. - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503672025 NC: 2026:KHC:49079-DB WA No. 1233 of 2025 C/W WA No. 199 of 2025 WA No. 216 of 2025 10. In the meantime Arun Kumar Kanoria sold the subject lands in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 under four separate sale deeds. 11. The legal heirs of the grantees, Sri Kadirappa and Chinnappa filed appeals against the order of Assistant Commissioner (SC/ST/(A)54/2003-04 & SC/ST/(A)55/2003-04) before the Special Deputy Commissioner. It was contended that the land was granted at an upset price and therefore the provisions of PTCL Act were not attracted. In the aforesaid view, the Special Deputy Commissioner passed an order dated 22.09.2008 setting aside the order dated 10.06.2003 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and remanded the matter to him to examine the facts in light of the decision of this court reported in 1993 (1) Kar.L,J. 328 (DB) captioned 'Pedda Reddy vs State of Karnataka and Others' and to pass an order after affording the parties an opportunity to be heard. 12. The Assistant Commissioner took up the matter in remand and passed an order on 14.01.2011 annulling the four sale deeds which were executed in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 respectively. He directed that the subject land be forfeited in favour - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503672025 NC: 2026:KHC:49079-DB WA No. 1233 of 2025 C/W WA No. 199 of 2025 WA No. 216 of 2025 of the Government and thereafter be restored in favour of the appellants. 13. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos.4 to 7 filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (SC/ST (Appeal) No.25/2011-2012 and SC/ST (Appeal) No.24/2011-2012) which were allowed in terms of an order dated 02.11.2021. The Deputy Commissioner held that the application for restoration was made after a lapse of 34 years and therefore the application had to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. 14. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed Writ Petition Nos.3840/2022 and 3857/2022, which were dismissed by the impugned order. 15. The learned Single Judge found that the application for restoration had been moved after 24 years after the enactment of the PTCL Act. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs State of Karnataka and Another1 and the decisions of this Court in Smt. M. Manjula and Others vs 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503672025 NC: 2026:KHC:49079-DB WA No. 1233 of 2025 C/W WA No. 199 of 2025 WA No. 216 of 2025 The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District and Others2; Smt. Gouramma @ Gangamma vs The Deputy Commissioner and Others3 and Smt. Akkayamma vs The State of Karnataka and Others4, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of delay as well as laches. 16. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 to 7 referred to several other decisions of this court where similar applications for restoration of granted land which have been filed after inordinate delay have been rejected on the ground of delay and laches. The question whether the application for resumption can be entertained, notwithstanding the inordinate delay and laches, is covered by several decisions of this Court. 17. The Supreme Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and in Vivek M Hinduja and Others vs M Aswatha and Others5 held that an application for restoration of granted land, which was 2 2024: KHC: 51015-DB 3 2024:KHC:D:10666-DB 4 2024:KHC: 48227-DB 5 (2020) 14 SCC 228 - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503672025 NC: 2026:KHC:49079-DB WA No. 1233 of 2025 C/W WA No. 199 of 2025 WA No. 216 of 2025 allegedly alienated in violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act, filed after an unreasonable period would not be maintainable. 18. We also note that the provisions of Section 5 of the PTCL Act were amended and clauses (c) and (d) were introduced by virtue of Act No.30/2023. 19. The effect of the said clauses was considered by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Gouramma @ Gangamma (supra), the Court observed as under : "3.*********** (c) The vehement submission of learned counsel for the appellant that Act 30 of 2023 has amended the provisions of Section 5 of the 1978 Act by adding clauses (c) & (d) to sub-section (1) of the said Section and therefore, the concept of “limitation and delay” has to remain miles away. These new clauses read as under: “(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.” It hardly needs to be stated that at no point of time, the 1978 Act prescribed any period of limitation for moving application for the resumption of granted land after it is alienated. - 16 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503672025 NC: 2026:KHC:49079-DB WA No. 1233 of 2025 C/W WA No. 199 of 2025 WA No. 216 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 - 17 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503672025 NC: 2026:KHC:49079-DB WA No. 1233 of 2025 C/W WA No. 199 of 2025 WA No. 216 of 2025 that ground. Accordingly, the judgments of the Karnataka 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. The following observations of the Apex Court in Union of India v. N. Murugesan [(2022) 2 SCC 25] make out this point: “Delay, laches and acquiescence 20. The principles governing delay, laches, and acquiescence are overlapping and interconnected on many occasions. However, they have their distinct characters and - 18 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503672025 NC: 2026:KHC:49079-DB WA No. 1233 of 2025 C/W WA No. 199 of 2025 WA No. 216 of 2025 distinct elements. One can say that delay is the genus to which laches and acquiescence are species. Similarly, laches might be called a genus to a species by name acquiescence. However, there may be a case where acquiescence is involved, but not laches. These principles are common law principles, and perhaps one could identify that these principles find place in various statutes which restrict the period of limitation and create non-consideration of condonation in certain circumstances.… The underlying principle governing these concepts would be one of estoppel. The question of prejudice is also an important issue to be taken note of by the court. 21. The word “laches” is derived from the French language meaning “remissness and slackness”. It thus involves unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a claim involving an equitable relief while causing prejudice to the other party. It is neglect on the part of a party to do an act which law requires while asserting a right, and therefore, must stand in the way of the party getting relief or remedy. 22. Two essential factors to be seen are the length of the delay and the nature of acts done during the interval. As stated, it would also involve acquiescence on the part of the party approaching the court apart from the change in position in the interregnum. Therefore, it would be unjustifiable for a Court of Equity to confer a remedy on a party who knocks its doors when his acts would indicate a waiver of such a right. By his conduct, he has put the other party in a particular position, and therefore, it would be unreasonable to facilitate a challenge before the court. Thus, a man responsible for his conduct on equity is not expected to be allowed to avail a remedy.” 20. We may also note that in Smt. M. Manjula (supra), the Division Bench of this court considered an appeal where a similar challenge was raised. In that case, the appellant sought restoration of the subject land after a lapse of more than 11 years, which the - 19 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503672025 NC: 2026:KHC:49079-DB WA No. 1233 of 2025 C/W WA No. 199 of 2025 WA No. 216 of 2025 court found unreasonable. The court also held that the relief sought for could not be granted as it would be barred by laches. 21. As noted above, in the present case, the subject land was alienated by the grantees in the years 1966 and 1969. The subject land was also the subject matter of further transactions and was conveyed by the purchasers to other vendees, who had further sold the subject land. In the given circumstances, no equitable relief could be claimed by the appellants. 22. We may note that the Special Leave Petition was preferred against the decision in the case of Smt. M. Manjula (supra). The Supreme Court dismissed the said petition [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.(s) 8421/2025] by an order dated 01.04.2025. The Supreme Court had, after hearing counsel for the parties, observed that it found no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 23. We may also note that SLP preferred against the decision of this Court in Gouramma @ Gangamma (supra) SLP (C) Diary No. - 20 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010503672025 NC: 2026:KHC:49079-DB WA No. 1233 of 2025 C/W WA No. 199 of 2025 WA No. 216 of 2025 19020/2025 was also dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order dated 09.05.2025. The same is set out below : "Delay condoned. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s). We see no merit in this case which calls for our interference, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed along with pending application(s), if any." 24. In view of the above, we find no infirmity with the decision of the learned Single Judge. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. 25. The pending interlocutory applications in all the three appeals also stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4