Karnataka High Court
Mr Nanjundappa vs State Of Karnataka on 17 July, 2025
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:26646-DB
WA No. 313 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO.313 OF 2022 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. NANJUNDAPPA
S/O LATE MANCHANALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
2. MR. MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE MANCHANALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
3. MR. DODDAMUNIYAMMA
D/O LATE MANCHANALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
Digitally signed ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE
by
MADHUSHREE R/AT VAGATA VILLAGE
H HOSKOTE TALUK
Location: High BENGALURU-562114.
Court of
Karnataka ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NISHANTH A. V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
MULTISTORIED BUILDING
BENGALURU -560001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:26646-DB
WA No. 313 of 2022
HC-KAR
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU-560 009.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION
BENGALURU-560 009.
4. MRS. LINGAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKADURGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS.
5. MRS. LAKSHMAMMA
S/O LATE KUMARASWAMY C
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.
6. MR. CHANDRU
S/O LATE KUMARASWAMY C
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
7. MR. RAVIKUMAR K S
S/O LATE KUMARASWAMY C
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
8. MRS. ROOPA
D/O LATE KUMARASWAMY C
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
9. MR. RAGHU K
S/O LATE KUMARASWAMY C
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 9 ARE
R/AT NO.101, 5TH CROSS
TEACHERS COLONY
DAYANANDA COLLEGE ROAD
J P NAGAR POST
BENGALURU-560 078.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:26646-DB
WA No. 313 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 12/07/2021 PASSED IN WP NO.45052/2015
(SC-ST) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT AND
THEREBY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND B) DISMISS THE WRIT
PETITION BEARING WP NO.45052/2015 AND THEREBY
CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 04/06/2010 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ORDER DATED
16/02/2015 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H
AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) The relatives of original grantee have filed this appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 calling in question the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12.07.2021 in Writ Petition No.45052/2015 whereby, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition filed by the purchaser of the land in dispute on the ground of delay and latches in initiating the proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of -4- NC: 2025:KHC:26646-DB WA No. 313 of 2022 HC-KAR Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short, "PTCL Act").
2. The facts leading to filing of this appeal are stated in paragraph Nos.3 to 5 of the impugned order which are extracted as under:-
"3. In the present case on hand, the land was granted in favour of the father of 4th to 6th respondents namely Manchanallappa by order dated 13.3.1956. The original grantee sold the petition land in favour of the 1stpetitioner under the registered sale deed dated 21.10.1971. The present respondents 4 to 6 who claims to be the legal heirs of the grantee filed an application in the year 2008. The 3rd respondent on an enquiry has come to the conclusion that the alienation by the original grantee in favour of the 1st petitioner is in violation of Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act and therefore, has allowed the application and ordered for restoration. On an appeal filed the said order is affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner- 2nd respondent. The material on record would clearly indicate that the grant was made in favour of the father of respondents 4 to 6 in the year 1956 with the condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years. Admittedly, the sale is dated 21.10.1971. Therefore, -5- NC: 2025:KHC:26646-DB WA No. 313 of 2022 HC-KAR this Court would find that the alienation by the original grantee is after expiry of non-alienation period of 15 years. It is also evident that the alienation is before commencement of the PTCL Act, which has come into force with effect from 1.1.1979. Therefore, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagadish .vs. State of Karnataka and others are squarely applicable to the case on hand. The Apex Court in the judgment cited supra has held that all alienations made by the grantee after expiry of non-alienation period and before commencement of the Act are saved and the same cannot be nullified by invoking the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act.
4. The application even otherwise is not maintainable on the ground of inordinate delay in initiating action under the provisions of the PTCL Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and another and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha(supra) has held that action has to be initiated by the interested person within a reasonable time. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 declined to entertain the application which was filed after nine years. The said order was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.16/2021.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:26646-DB WA No. 313 of 2022 HC-KAR
5. In the present case on hand, there is delay of 29 years. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the application filed after lapse of 29 years is not at all maintainable. However, respondents 3 and 2 have not at all examined the inordinate delay in filing the application. The order passed by respondents 3 and 2 runs contrary to the dictum and principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments cited supra. In that view of the matter, the orders under challenge are not at all sustainable and are accordingly liable to be set aside."
3. The learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 and Vivek M. Hinduja vs. M. Aswatha reported in (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 (SC).
4. In the cases stated supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has extensively considered the interpretation of Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The consideration of the provisions and the time period to question alienation by the grantee or in case of his death by his relatives within a reasonable time -7- NC: 2025:KHC:26646-DB WA No. 313 of 2022 HC-KAR as has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases stated supra has been discussed by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No.2, which we reproduce as under:-
"2. Before I advert to the facts of the present case, it would be useful to refer to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court on this issue in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi .vs. State of Karnataka and another and Vivek M. Hinduja .vs. M. Aswatha² It would be also useful to refer to the judgment rendered by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446 of 2012, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.16/2021 disposed of on
5.4.2021.
The Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi's case while interpreting Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act") had an occasion to examine the point of limitation wherein interested person can file appropriate application seeking annulment of sale as void under Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The Apex Court by reiterating the principles laid down in Chhedi Lal Yadav.vs. Hari Kishore Yadav and also in the case of Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and -8- NC: 2025:KHC:26646-DB WA No. 313 of 2022 HC-KAR others [(2020) 14 SCC 236] was pleased to reiterate the settled position of law where Statute did not prescribe the period of limitation, the provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. The Apex Court was of the view that the authorities have to give due regard to the period of time within which action has to be taken by the interested person. The Apex Court was of the view that it is well within the discretion of the competent authorities to not to annul the alienations where there is inordinate delay in initiating action by the interested persons under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 disposed of on 24.1.2020 declined to entertain the application filed by the original grantee where there was a delay of ten years. This Court was of the view that the application itself was not maintainable since the same was not filed within a reasonable time. While recording the finding this Court was pleased to rely on the Deputy judgment of the Apex Court in Ningappa .vs. Deputy Commissioner and others wherein the Apex Court had declined to entertain the application which was submitted after nine years seeking restoration of land under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The judgment rendered by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.50446/2012 is affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.16/2021." -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:26646-DB WA No. 313 of 2022 HC-KAR
5. Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the facts in the case on hand, wherein, there is delay of 29 years in approaching the authorities under the PTCL Act, from the date of sale deed i.e., dated 21.10.1971, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by the respondent No.3 as per Annexure - F and order passed by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure - H. It is this order called in question in the present appeal.
6. Heard Sri.Nishanth A.V., learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Smt.Saritha Kulkarni, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
7. Sri.Nishanth A.V., vehemently submitted that the question of limitation in filing an application seeking for resumption and restoration of granted land under the PTCL Act does not arise. To buttress his arguments, he has relied on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.596-597/2016 decided on 08.07.2019 wherein,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26646-DB WA No. 313 of 2022 HC-KAR this Court has held that the purchaser should not be allowed to take advantage of the recent decisions in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek Hinduja stated supra. He has further stated that the question of delay and latches were never been raised and argued before the fact finding authorities viz Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
8. He has further contended that the question of delay and latches has been raised for the first time before this Court in the writ petition. Lastly, he has submitted that in the absence of any limitation prescribed under the provisions of PTCL Act, there is no straight jacket formula to decide what is a reasonable delay for filing an application or a writ petition. On this, Sri.Nishanth A.V., with all vehemence submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider these aspects of the matter and sought to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and confirm the order passed by the authorities under the PTCL Act.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26646-DB WA No. 313 of 2022 HC-KAR
9. Smt.Saritha Kulkarni, in support of the order passed by the learned Single Judge would contend that though there is no limitation fixed under the provisions of PTCL Act, but in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the grantee ought to have approached the authorities seeking for resumption and restoration of granted land within a reasonable time. What is reasonable time will depend on the facts of each case.
10. In the case on hand, there is a delay of 29 years clearly visible from the date of sale deed i.e., 21.10.1971. That apart, the original grantee, who has sold the land in dispute in favour of first petitioner under the registered sale deed dated 21.10.1971, has not questioned the same before the Authorities invoking the provisions seeking for resumption and restoration of the granted land, under the provisions of the PTCL Act.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26646-DB WA No. 313 of 2022 HC-KAR
11. The appellants herein, subsequent to death of the original grantee, after an inordinate delay of 29 years from the date of sale, invoked the provisions under the PTCL Act in the year 2008. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has rightly considered the aspect of delay in the case on hand and allowed the petition filed by the legal representatives of the purchaser and quashed the order passed by the authorities at Annexures - 'F' and 'H', which does not call for interference and sought to dismiss the appeal.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire writ appeal papers, the only point that arose for our consideration is:-
Whether the learned Single Judge is justified in allowing the writ petition and quashing the orders passed by the respondent Nos.3 and 2, vide Annexures 'F' and 'H' respectively.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26646-DB WA No. 313 of 2022 HC-KAR
13. Our answer to the above point for consideration is in the 'Affirmative' for the following reasons:-
It is not in dispute that the land was granted in favour of the ancestor of appellants herein on 13.03.1956. The original grantee sold the petition land in favour of the husband of the first petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 21.10.1971. The original grantee had not initiated any proceedings under the provisions of the PTCL Act till his death. Admittedly, the proceedings were initiated in the year 2008 i.e., after lapse of period of 29 years from the date of registered sale deed.
14. Though the contentions put forth by Sri.Nishanth A.V., are appealable at the first blush but after going through the record, especially the application filed under Sections 4(1) and 5 of the PTCL Act, nothing is forthcoming, which suggests that the appellants have explained the cause for the delay in approaching the authorities except making averments as to no permission
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26646-DB WA No. 313 of 2022 HC-KAR has been obtained as required under the Act and the as usual ground of fraud without any specification against the purchaser and illiteracy on the part of the original grantee as well as the appellants. This goes to show that there is no explanation for the delay caused. In these circumstances, the contentions raised liable to be rejected and accordingly, rejected.
15. Insofar as the contention of the appellants that the petitioners approached the Court on the basis of delay for the first time is concerned on the latest pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as the point of delay i.e. non approaching the authorities within a reasonable time, which goes against the right of a party to seek for a remedy as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases supra is no more res integra requires no more deliberation and to be rejected and accordingly, rejected.
16. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge after
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26646-DB WA No. 313 of 2022 HC-KAR considering the relevant facts and the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court supra, rightly allowed the petition and quashed the orders impugned, we find no infirmities, which requires interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, we pass the following:-
ORDER
i) The appeal fails as sans merit and accordingly, dismissed.
ii) In the facts and circumstance of the case, no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MH/-
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32