- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:493-DB WA No. 100735 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH 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. 100735 OF 2025 (SCST) BETWEEN: LAMBANI RAMANAIK S/O MAGANAIK, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NANDIKAMB TANDA VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TALUKA, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583 131. … APPELLANT (BY SRI PRAKASH BADIGER, ADVOCATE FOR SRI HIREMATHAD MAHESHIAH RUDRAYYA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CHIEF SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, HOSAPETE-583 201, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.29 12:09:28 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:493-DB WA No. 100735 of 2025 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HARPANAHALLI, AT POST: HARPANAHALLI-583 131. 5. THE TAHASILDAR, TAHASHILDAR OFFICE, HARPANAHALLI-583 131. 6. REVENUE INSPECTOR, ARASIKERI CIRCLE, ARASIKERI, HARPANAHALLI TALUKA, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583 125. 7. GODI TIMMAPPA S/O BASAPPA, AGE ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. DAGGI BASAPUR, KAMMTHAHALLI, DIST. VINAYANAGAR, KARNATAKA-583 125. 8. THE POLICE SUB–INSPECTOR, ARASIKERE POLICE STATION, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT-583 125. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 TO R6 AND R8) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ORDER DATED 28.10.2025, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, IN WRIT PETITION NO.102105/2025 (SC-ST), MAY BE SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING THE THIS APPEAL IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:493-DB WA No. 100735 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) Aggrieved by the order passed in Writ Petition No.102105/2025, respondent No.7 therein has preferred this writ appeal. 2. Forefathers of the appellant were granted the land in question in the year 1979. The appellant belong to the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe community. The same was alienated in favour of respondent No.7 herein in the year 1996. On the ground that the said alienation was in violation of provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, the same was challenged by the appellant herein in the year 2023. The said petition filed by the appellant was allowed by the Revenue Authorities and the sale was cancelled, land was resumed and allotted to the appellant herein. It was challenged by respondent No.7 herein in Writ Petition No.102105/2025 (SC ST), wherein - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:493-DB WA No. 100735 of 2025 the learned Single Judge on the ground that there is an inordinate delay on part of the appellant herein in challenging the alienation, set aside the order passed by the Revenue Authorities and directed the authorities concerned to restore the name of the petitioner/respondent No.7 herein in the property records. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed. 3. Admittedly, the mother of the appellant has sold the land in question way back in the year 1996 for a valuable consideration in favour of respondent No.7 herein. It has been for the first time challenged in the year 2023 after a lapse of nearly 27 years. The inordinate delay is not explained. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka ad Another, reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232, in case of such inordinate delay, the person belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, who has alienated the land, cannot call the same in question. Applying the said ratio, the learned Single Judge has rightly - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:493-DB WA No. 100735 of 2025 allowed the writ petition. We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ appeal is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE Sd/- (B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE CKK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 28