1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

W.A. NO.513 OF 2022 (SC-ST)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA @ MUNIGA
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
R/AT BINNAMANGALA VILLAGE
BASHETTIHALLI HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562101.

2. SMT. CHENNAMMA
W/O SRIRAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT IDDALUDU VILLAGE, VASALA HOBLI
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

3. SMT. PARVATHAMMA
W/O VENKATARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

4. SMT. PAPAMMA
W/O YERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT GALDLUCHINTE, SADLE HOBLI
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
 2

APPELLANT NO.1 TO 4 ARE

LR'S OF MUNIYAPPA @ MUNIGA
WHO WAS RESPONDENT NO.4 IN
WP NO.14903/2014 (SC/ST).

5. CHENNAKRISHNA
S/O CHENNARAYA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT YENNANGUR VILLAGE
JANGAMKOTE TALUK, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. HALESHA R.G. ADV.,)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101.

4. MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS
R/AT HARADI, JANGAMKOTE HOBLI
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

SRI. ERAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S.

5. SMT. AKKALAMMA
 3

D/O LATE ERAPPA

AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/AT YENNANGUR VILLAGE, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101.

6. SRI. RAJANNA
S/O LATE ERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT YENNANGUR VILLAGE
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

7. SRI. MUNIGOWDA
S/O LATE ERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT YENNANGUR VILLAGE, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101.

8. SMT. MEENAMMA
D/O LATE ERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, HARALAHALLI
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

9. SRI. RAMESH E
S/O LATE ERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT YENNANGUR VILLAGE
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

10. SMT. SUMITRA .E

D/O LATE ERAPPA
W/O RAMANANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT THIMAPPANAHALLI, HOSKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

11. SRI. MURTHY .E

S/O LATE ERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT YENNANGUR VILLAGE, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK
 4

CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101.

12. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA .E

D/O LATE ERAPPA
W/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT GANGAWARA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

13. SRI. DEVARAJA E

S/O LATE ERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/AT YENNANGUR VILLAGE, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101.

14. KRISHNA E
S/O LATE ERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/AT. YEENNANGUR VILLAGE
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST-562101.

15. SRI. VENKATESHAPPA

S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS.

16. SRI. PILLAPPA

S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS.

RESPONDENT NO.15 & 16 ARE

R/AT YENNANGUR VILLAGE, JANGAMKOTE HOBLI
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY MR. RAHUL S. REDDY, ADV., FOR C/R4

MR. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1, R2, & R3)

---
 5

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 08/12/2021 IN WP NO.14903/204 (SC-ST)
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE WHEREBY
QUASHED THE WELL SPEAKING ORDER DATED 29/08/2011
IN PTCL (SHI) 58/08-09 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION,
CHIKKABALLAPUR AND PLEASED TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 23/12/2013 IN RA/SCST/33/2011-12, PASSED BY
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT,
CHIKKABALLAPURA, PRODUCED IN WRIT PETITION AS
ANNEXURES-C AND D. FURTHER PLEASED TO PASS SUCH
OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTIONS.

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal is filed against an order

dated 08.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge

in W.P. No.14903/2014, by which writ petition

preferred by respondent Nos.4 to 16 has been allowed

and order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and

Deputy Commissioner under Karnataka Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer

of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as

the 'PTCL Act' for short), have been set aside.

 6

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal

briefly stated are that land bearing Sy. No.86 (old)

Survey No.162 (new) measuring 1 acre and 37 guntas

situate at Yennangur Village, Jangamkote Hobli,

Shidlaghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapura District, was

granted in favour of respondent No.4 on 25.05.1951.

The respondent No.4 by a registered Sale Deed dated

14.04.1960 sold the land.

3. Thereafter, in the year 2008, an application

under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act was filed. The

Assistant Commissioner by an order dated

29.08.2011 allowed the application filed by

respondent No.4. The Deputy Commissioner by an

order passed in appeal dated 23.12.2013 directed to

restore possession of the land in question in favour of

the State Government. The purchasers thereupon

filed W.P. No.14903/2014. The learned Single Judge

 7

by an order dated 08.12.2021 set side the order

passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the

Deputy Commissioner and allowed the writ petition.

In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has

been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants

submitted that question of delay and laches is a

question to be decided in the facts of the case and

therefore, the appellant should be granted an

opportunity to explain the delay of 29 years in filing

the application seeking resumption of land under the

PTCL Act. In support of aforesaid submissions,

reliance has been placed on the division bench

decision of this Court in SMT. P. KAMALA v. THE

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,

REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND ORS.1.

1
ILR 2019 KAR 3301
 8

5. We have considered the submissions made

by the learned counsel for the appellants and have

perused the record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in

NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF

KARNATAKA AND ORS.2 has held that Section 5 of

the PTCL Act enables any interested person to make

an application for having the transfer annulled as void

under Section 4 of the Act. The aforesaid Section does

not prescribe for any period of limitation. However, it

has been held that any action whether on an

application of the parties or suo motu, must be taken

within a reasonable period of time. The Supreme

Court, in the aforesaid decision, held that the

application seeking resumption of the land filed after

a period of 24 years, suffered from inordinate delay

and was therefore, liable to be dismissed on that

ground. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble

2
(2020) 14 SCC 232
 9

Supreme Court in VIVEK M.HINDUJA & ANR. Vs.

M.ASHWATHA3 and it was held that whenever

limitation is not prescribed, the party ought to

approach the competent Court or Authority within a

reasonable time beyond which no relief can be

granted. In the aforesaid case, delay of 20 years in

filing the application for resumption was held to be

unreasonable.

6. Admittedly, in the instant case, the land in

question was alienated on 14.04.1960. The Act came

into force in the year 1978. After an inordinate delay

of 29 years, an explanation seeking resumption of

land was filed, for which, no explanation has been

offered. The delay in making the application seeking

resumption of the land does not entitle the appellants

to seek any relief. However, the aforesaid aspect of

the matter has not been appreciated neither by the

3
(2020) 14 SCC 228
 10

Assistant Commissioner nor the Deputy

Commissioner. The learned Single Judge has rightly

set aside the orders passed by the Assistant

Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. The

delay in filing the application for resumption of land is

29 years for which no explanation has been offered.

7. In the instant proceedings also, despite

opportunity being afforded, learned counsel for the

appellants did not offer any explanation with regard to

delay of 29 years in filing the application for

resumption. An order of remand, in our considered

opinion, would protract the life of the litigation.

Therefore, in the absence of even a prima facie

explanation with regard to inordinate delay of 29

years in filing the application for resumption of land

under PTCL Act, we are not inclined to remit the

matter to the authorities under the PTCL Act.

 11

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find

any ground to differ with the view taken by the

learned Single Judge.

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the

pending interlocutory application does not survive for

consideration and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-
JUDGE

SS