Karnataka High Court
Sri Ikram Pasha vs The Deputy Commissioner on 26 June, 2025
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22923-DB
WA No. 1431 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO.1431 OF 2021 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI. IKRAM PASHA
S/O NOORULLA HUSSAIN
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/AT NO.246, 1ST MAIN
DOLLARS COLONY
RMV 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 094
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S A SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
by
MADHUSHREE H CHICKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
Location: High CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 101
Court of
Karnataka
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT
CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 101
3. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA
W/O N MUNIYAPPA
MAJOR
R/AT JATHAWARA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
NANDI HOBLI
CHICKABALLAPUR TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 562 101
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22923-DB
WA No. 1431 of 2021
HC-KAR
4. LAKSHMINARAYAN SWAMY
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
5. A.L.JANAKAMMA
W/O LAKSHMINARAYAN SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
6. HARSHITHA J.L
D/O LAKSHMINARAYAN SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
7. VISHAKA. J.L
D/O LAKSHMINARAYAN SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN AND
FATHER MR. LAKSHMINARAYAN SWAMY.
R4-R7 ARE R/AT NO.22/1,
MILIND, 16TH CROSS,
KANAKANAGAR, R.T.NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 32.
8. MR. MAHADEO A JIGALI
S/O ADIVEPPA SIDDAPPA JIGALI,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
R/AT NO.A-4/10, DUDHSAGAR CHS,
CIBA ROAD, GOREYAON EAST,
MUMBAI - 400 065.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH B K, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. B.V. MANJUNATHA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 - R7;
VIDE ORDER DATED 12.06.2024, NOTICE TO R8 IS HELD
SUFFICIENT)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 05.02.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.57829/2013 (SC/ST)
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, ETC
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:22923-DB
WA No. 1431 of 2021
HC-KAR
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 S.G.PANDIT) 1 I.A.No.1/2021 is filed to condone the delay of 2753 days in filing the above appeal.
2. The appellant, petitioner before the learned Single Judge, is before this Court in Writ Appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 05.02.2014 in W.P.No.57829/2013 wherein, petitioner challenge to the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 30.01.2011 as well as Deputy Commissioner dated 09.10.2013 directing restoration of the land in favour of respondent No.3, is rejected.
3. Heard Sri.S.A.Sudhindra, learned counsel for the appellant - petitioner, Smt.Saritha Kulkarni, learned AGA -4- NC: 2025:KHC:22923-DB WA No. 1431 of 2021 HC-KAR for respondents No.1 and 2 as well as Sri.Manjunath B.K., learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and perused the entire writ appeal papers.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant - petitioner submits that the respondent No.3 claims that the land in question was originally granted to one Sri.Nanjundappa, who belonged to scheduled caste, under grant certificate dated 29.10.1977. Pursuant to which, Saguvali chit was issued on 17.03.1981. The respondent No.3 is daughter- in-law of original grantee Sri.Nanjundappa. On 21.06.1996, petitioner purchased the property in question from Smt.Narasamma and others. Thereafter, in the year 2007, respondent No.3 initiated proceedings under the provisions of Sections 4(1) and 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act'). The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 09.10.2013, allowed the application of respondent No.3 and directed restoration of the land in question to -5- NC: 2025:KHC:22923-DB WA No. 1431 of 2021 HC-KAR respondent No.3. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 30.01.2011 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 09.10.2013. Against which, the petitioner filed W.P.No.57829/2013 before this Court.
5. Learned Single Judge by order dated 05.02.2014 dismissed the writ petition holding that sale is made after coming into force of the PTCL Act in contravention of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, as there was express prohibition for transferring the granted lands without prior permission of the Government. Learned Single Judge confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as Deputy Commissioner, against which, present appeal is filed on 23.12.2021 after more than 2,753 days delay.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:22923-DB WA No. 1431 of 2021 HC-KAR
6. In the affidavit accompanying the application, the appellant has stated that he fell ill due to Hypertension and Diabetes and suffered from Dementia in the year 2014.
7. Along with the application, the petitioner had enclosed medical certificate dated 22.11.2021 issued by Nelofer Polyclinic & Day Care Center. Subsequently, the appellant - petitioner also filed additional better affidavit enclosing one more medical certificate dated 01.04.2023 wherein, it is stated that during the period of Covid-19, he was unable to move. It is also stated that the appellant suffered from Dementia, as such, he could not file the appeal in time. The said application for condonation of delay is opposed by filing objection by respondents No.3, 4 to 7.
8. There is inordinate delay of 2,753 days in filing the appeal. In other words, there is more than 8 years delay in preferring the appeal. The delay is not explained -7- NC: 2025:KHC:22923-DB WA No. 1431 of 2021 HC-KAR properly. The medical certificate produced along with better affidavit reads as follows:-
"I have been seeing Ikram Pasha since 2013, ever since he returned from Libya, upon losing his job he had developed depression and anxiety for which he was consulted and treated. Subsequently he developed Hypertension and Diabetics for which he is on regular treatment. Suddenly he had tendency for forget fullness and Primary Alzheimer's. His family has been explained and advised regular treatment and family support.
Issued in the interest of the patient."
9. The above medical certificate which is issued by Dr.Mir Iftekhar Ali would only state that the appellant developed Hypertension and Diabetics for which, he gave regular treatment. The above would not prevent a person from carrying out his day to day work and the same is not an impediment to contact his counsel to file appeal. The appellant has not explained the period during which he suffered Dementia. It appears that the Doctor certificate is obtained only to file the present appeal. The main contention of the appellant in the writ appeal is that the respondent No.3 approached the authorities for restoration -8- NC: 2025:KHC:22923-DB WA No. 1431 of 2021 HC-KAR of land belatedly after nearly 10 years. The same would apply to the appellant - petitioner also, who has approached this Court in appeal after nearly more than 8 years of delay. The writ appeal stands rejected on the question of delay. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2021 is dismissed. Consequently, writ appeal is also dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MH/-
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14