- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:23-DB WA No. 100018 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI WRIT APPEAL NO.100018 OF 2025 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAKKAWWA, W/O. YAMANAPPA MANG, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAVASUDDI – 591 222, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 580 001. 2. SRI. RAMAPPA, S/O. LAKKAWWA MANG, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAVASUDDI – 591 222, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 580 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJAT R. JOGALEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI – 5900 01, TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:23-DB WA No. 100018 of 2025 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKODI SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKODI – 591 201, TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SRI. LAXMAN, S/O. GIREPPA BETAGERI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAVASUDDI – 580 001, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. SRI. LAKKAPPA, S/O. IRAPPA KORE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAVASUDDI – 591 222, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. SRI. SHIVAPUTRA, S/O. IRAPPA KORE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAVASUDDI – 591 222, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGUM, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.11.2021 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.100768/2016 (SC/ST) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION NO.100768/2016 (SC/ST) AND ETC., THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:23-DB WA No. 100018 of 2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) Aggrieved by the order passed in Writ Petition No.100768/2016 dated 17.11.2021, the present writ appeal is filed by respondents No.3 and 4 therein. 2. The appellants belong to scheduled caste/scheduled tribe community. Appellant No.1 is the mother and appellant No.2 is her son. The father of appellant No.1 was granted a land in the year 1978, which is the subject matter of the writ appeal. After his demise, the appellants are stated to have inherited the property. They sold the property on 11.08.1997 in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein who, in turn, has sold the same in favour of respondent No.3 herein by way of a registered sale deed dated 09.11.2004. The appellants challenged the alienations done by virtue of the said sale deeds before the authorities concerned, and an order was passed in their favour setting aside the sale. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:23-DB WA No. 100018 of 2025 3. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.3 herein preferred W.P. No.100768/2016. The same has been allowed on the ground that the appellants have initiated the proceedings challenging the sale after a lapse of more than 15 years and that there is an inordinate delay. Reliance has been placed by the learned Single Judge on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. The State of Karnataka and Another1. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed. 4. The case of the appellants is that they are ignorant and illiterate persons, and utilizing the same, respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein have, fraudulently, got the sale deed executed in their favour. It is further submitted that the sale has taken place without obtaining necessary permission from the government. However, the appellants are unable to answer the inordinate delay in initiating the appropriate proceedings challenging the same. 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:23-DB WA No. 100018 of 2025 5. A socio-economic beneficial legislation is enacted or protective discrimination is provided for certain categories of persons under the Constitution to prevent them from being exploited. It is not meant to be used as a tool by a member belonging to the said community for unjust enrichment or to exploit others. 6. In the instant case, the appellants herein, themselves knowing fully well the implications of the sale, have sold the property concerned in favour of respondents No.4 and 5 herein way back in the year 1997 and they, in turn, have sold the property in the year 2004 for a valuable consideration in favour of respondent No.3. The appellants have challenged the same, for the first time, after a lapse of nearly 15 years. They have allowed third party rights to be created over the property. 7. The Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) has held that such alienation has to be challenged within a reasonable time. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:23-DB WA No. 100018 of 2025 delay of around 15 years in challenging the same has to be considered as an unreasonable one. We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned single Judge. Further, there is a delay of 1068 days in filing the present writ appeal which is not satisfactorily explained. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, I.A. No.2/2025 filed for condonation of delay is hereby rejected, and the writ appeal stands dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE Sd/- (B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE KMS/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31