Sri Vijayendra v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2025WA/110/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PTCL Act 1978 Section 5; Karnataka SC/ST granted land; resumption and restitution; delay and laches versus limitation; Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (2020) 14 SCC 232; Union of India v. N. Murugesan (2022) 2 SCC 25; Smt. Gouramma Dharwad Bench; 2023 Amendment clauses (c) and (d); W.P.27496/2023 validity pending; Chikkaballapura Sy.No.91 Beedaganahalli; 32-year delay; writ appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; the writ appeal is dismissed and the learned Single Judge's judgment allowing the writ petition stands upheld. ¶¶120

Sri Vijayendra Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the writ appeal is dismissed and the learned Single Judge's judgment allowing the writ petition stands upheld.

¶¶120

Issue for consideration

Whether restoration/restitution of granted land under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, 1978 can be granted where the proceedings were initiated about 32 years after the grant, given that Section 5 prescribes no time limit but delay and laches operate in equity. +1 more

¶¶115

Court's answer

In the facts of the case, restoration of the granted land cannot be permitted after 32 years; the question of laches comes into play, and granting restoration to the original grantee-appellant, treating the long-back transfer as null and void, would be highly unreasonable, unjust and inequitable and against law.

¶¶115

Ratio / Principle

Limitation and delay-and-laches are distinct concepts: limitation binds a litigant in initiating legal action within prescribed time, whereas laches concedes an element of culpability in allowing time to pass in commencing the action, and operates in equity.

¶¶114

Key takeaways

The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge does not book any error; accordingly, the appeal is meritless and is dismissed.ratio¶¶119
This judgment does not touch the merits of the pending challenge (Writ Petition No.27496 of 2023) to the validity of the 2023 Amendment; those proceedings before the learned Single Judge are to be decided on their own merits.obiter¶¶87

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal No.110 of 2023 (SC-ST), High Court of Karnataka (Division Bench: N.V. Anjaria, CJ, authoring the Oral Judgment, and M.I. Arun, J), decided 04.02.2025 — appeal against the learned Single Judge's judgment dated 18.02.2022, which had quashed the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 02.09.2011 and the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 07.07.2014 restoring, under Section 5 of the Karnataka SC/ST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, land Sy.No.91 (old No.48), admeasuring 6 acres 16 guntas, Beedaganahalli village, granted to K. Rajendran (saguvali chit dated 26.06.1962; free grant; no sale for 15 years), to the appellant. Held: although Section 5 prescribes no time limit for resumption or restitution, restoration of the granted land cannot be permitted 32 years after the grant; delay and laches, distinct from limitation, bar equitable relief — following Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (2020) 14 SCC 232 and relying on Union of India v. N. Murugesan (2022) 2 SCC 25; the Coordinate Bench's decision in Smt. Gouramma (W.A.100101/2024, Dharwad Bench) treating the 2023 Amendment clauses (c)-(d) as declaratory was noted, and the validity of the amendment was expressly left open (W.P.27496/2023). The Single Judge's judgment books no error; appeal dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:5013-DB WA No. 110 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT APPEAL NO. 110 OF 2023 (SC-ST)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI VIJAYENDRA S/O K RAJENDRAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶10

BEHIND CHOWDESHWAR TEMPLE SRINIVASA KALYAN MANTAP KOTE CHIKKABALLAPURA -560 095

¶11

CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI R.S. RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI SHIVASWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDINGS BANGALORE -560 001

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA -560 095

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPURA -560 095

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5013-DB WA No. 110 of 2023

¶20

SMT VEENA D/O RAJENDRA

¶21

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶22

SRI R SACHINDRAN S/O K RAJENDRAN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.4 & 5 ARE R/AT NO. 204, C BLOCK, ALPINE APARTMENTS BELLARY ROAD GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE -560 032

¶23

SRI PILLA BACCHAPPA S/O SONNAPPA MAJOR BEEDAGANAHALLI VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK

¶24

AND DISTRICT - 560 095

¶25

SRI D NARAYANASWAMY S/O DODDA SONNAPPA MAJOR

¶26

BEEDAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN CODE -560 095

¶27

SRI CHIKKA LAGHUMAIAH S/O MUNISHAMAPPA MAJOR BEEDAGANAHALLI VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI CHICKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT PINCODE -560 095

¶28

SRI HARSHVARDHAN AMBEDKAR S/O LATE CHANDRABAAN AMBEDKAR MAJOR R/O T G TANK ROAD BEHIND VENUGOPALSWAMY TEMPLE

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:5013-DB WA No. 110 of 2023

¶31

CHICKBALLAPURA TOWN AND DISTRICT

¶32

PIN CODE -560 095

¶33

SRI H GOPAL REDDY @ GOPI S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO. 68,69, 70 AIRPORT ROAD BYATARAYANAPURA BENGALURU -560 092

¶34

SRI SYED PEER SAB

¶35

S/O SYED KARIM SAB AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/O BEEDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI CHIKCBALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN CODE -560 001

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 3; SMT. S. MAMATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R10; SRI DHIRAJ NAYARKODI, ADVOCATE FOR R11 RESPONDENT NOS.4 & 9 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶38

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT 3RD RESPONDENT IN CASE No. PTCL (CHIKKA) 88/2007-08, 55/2009-10 WHICH WAS DISPOSED ON 03.09.2011 AND ALSO RECORDS FROM THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT 2ND RESPONDENT IN CASE No.R.A No.SC/ST/25/2013-14 WHICH WAS DISPOSED ON 07.07.2014 AND ETC.

¶39

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5013-DB WA No. 110 of 2023

¶41

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶42

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶43

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶44

Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.S. Ravi with learned advocate Mr. Shivaswamy for the appellant, learned Government Advocate Mr. K.S. Harish for respondent Nos.1 to 3, learned advocate Smt. S. Mamatha for respondent No.10 and learned advocate Mr. Dhiraj Nayarkodi for respondent No.11. Respondent Nos.4 and 9, though served with the notice of the Court have not chosen to appear.

¶45

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.02.2022 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the petition filed by respondent No.11 herein - original petitioner came to be allowed and the order dated 02.09.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapura Division, Chikkaballapura as well as the order dated 07.07.2014 passed by

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5013-DB WA No. 110 of 2023

¶47

the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapura District came to be quashed.

¶48

2.1 By the said orders, the authorities had accepted the prayer of the appellant - respondent No.4 in the writ petition for restoration and restitution of the land under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 bearing Sy.No.91 (old No.48) admeasuring 6 Acres and 16 Guntas out of which, 0.35 Guntas were karab land situated at Beedaganahalli Village, Nandi Hobli, Chikkaballapura Taluka. The said land was granted to one Mr. K. Rajendran who is the father of respondent Nos.4 to 6 in the writ petition. Hence, saguvali chit was issued on 26.06.1962 which contained the condition that the land shall not be sold for 15 years and that the said grant is a free grant.

¶49

2.2 The grantee sold 5 Acres and 21 Guntas in favour of the father of respondent No.12, who in turn, executed a registered sale deed dated 02.01.1975. Thereafter, the land changed the hands for several times. The setting aside of the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner by learned

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:5013-DB WA No. 110 of 2023

¶52

Single Judge was on the ground that the land was granted in the year 1960 and that the first transaction took place after 15 years.

¶53

The decision of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka, [ (2020) 14 SCC 232] was relied on to hold that 32 years in the instant case in initiating the proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 1978 was marred by inordinate delay and laches.

¶54

The legal provisions and development of law in the subject deserve to be noticed. While ‘granted land’ is defined in Section 3(b) of the Act, Section 4 of the Act deals with the prohibition of transfer of granted lands, to provide that notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or commencement of the Act, in terms of the contravention of the grant or in contravention of the law in that regard or in breach of sub-Section (2) of Section 4, such transfer shall be treated as null and void, not to give any right, title or interest in favour of the person to whom the land is transferred.

¶55

4.1 As per sub-Section (2), no person shall after commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government. Under sub-Section

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5013-DB WA No. 110 of 2023

¶57

(3), the provisions in sub-Sections (1) and (2) are made applicable to the sale of any land in execution of any decree or award, etc., of the Court. Section 5 of the Act deals with the resumption and restitution of granted lands.

¶58

4.2 Section 5 as it stood originally, reads as under,

¶59

"5. Resumption and restitution of granted lands-

¶60

(1) Where, on application by any interested person or on information given in writing by any person or suo-motu , and after such enquiry as he deems necessary, the Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that the transfer of any granted land is null and void under Sub-section (1) of Section 4, he may,-

¶61

(a) by order take possession of such land after evicting all persons in possession thereof in such manner as may be prescribed:

¶62

Provided that no such order shall be made except after giving the person affected a reasonable opportunity of being heard;

¶63

(b) restore such land to the original grantee or his legal heir. Where it is not reasonably practicable to restore the land to such grantee or legal heir; such land shall be deemed to have vested in the Government free form all encumbrances. The Government may

¶64

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:5013-DB WA No. 110 of 2023

¶66

grant such land to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in accordance with the rules relating to grant of land.

¶67

(1-A) After an enquiry referred to in Sub-section (1) the Assistant Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that transfer of any granted land is not null and void pass an order accordingly.

¶68

(2) Subject to the orders of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-А, any order passed under sub-sections (1) and (1-A) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law and no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of any proceeding taken or about to be taken by the Assistant Commissioner in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.

¶69

(3) For the purposes of this Section, where any granted land is in the possession of a person, other then the original grantee or his legal heir, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that such person has acquired the land by a transfer which is null and void under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 4."

¶70

4.3 It would be noticed from the aforesaid provision that there is

¶71

no prescription of time limit for resumption or restitution of the land which is null and void under Section 4(1) of the Act. However, various judicial decisions, prominent amongst is Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra), which was in the very context of Sections 4 and

¶72

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:5013-DB WA No. 110 of 2023

¶74

5 of the Act. It was held therein that the application made for restitution of the land after delay of 25 years, was not liable to be acceptable in law, as it was after unreasonable delay. It was held that there was no annulment of transfer could be allowed.

¶75

4.3.1 It was observed and held in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi

¶76

(supra) ,

¶77

“However, the question that arises is with regard to terms of Section 5 of the Act which enables any interested person to make an application for having the transfer annulled as void under Section 4 of the Act. This section does not prescribe any period within which such an application can be made. Neither does it prescribe the period within which suo motu action may be taken. This Court in Chhedi Lal Yadav & Ors. vs. Hari Kishore Yadav & Ors., [2017 (6) Scale 459] and also in the case of Ningappa vs. Deputy Commissioner & Ors. [C.A. No. 3131 of 2007, decided on 14.07.2011] reiterated a settled position in law that whether statute provided for a period of limitation, provisions of the statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. It is held that action whether on an application of the parties, or suo motu, must be taken within a reasonable time.’’

¶78

(para 8)

¶79

4.3.2 It was further stated,

¶80

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5013-DB WA No. 110 of 2023

¶81

“An application for restoration was made after 24 years and was allowed. It is in that background that this Court upheld that it was unreasonable to do so. We have no hesitation in upholding that the present application for restoration of land made by respondent Rajappa was made after an unreasonably long period and was liable to be dismissed on that ground. Accordingly, the judgments of the Karnataka High Court, namely, R. Rudrappa vs. Deputy Commissioner, 2000 (1) Karnataka Law Journal, 303 and G. Maregouda vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga and Ors, 2000(2) Kr. L.J.Sh. N.4B holding that there is no limitation provided by Section 5 of the Act and, therefore, an application can be made at any time, are overruled. ……”

¶82

4.4 While the aforesaid law that relief of setting aside of transfer could not be granted after unreasonably long period and the applications made under Section 5 for restitution or resumption of the land by a person could not be acted upon in favour of such person on the ground of delay, the legislature intervened to proceed to amend Section 5 by virtue of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) (Amendment) Act, 2023, notified in the Gazette Notification dated 27.07.2023. Thereby sub-clauses (c) and (d) were inserted, namely,

¶83

11 -

¶84

NC: 2025:KHC:5013-DB WA No. 110 of 2023

¶85

“(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, there shall be no limitation of time to invoke the provisions of this Act.

¶86

(d) The provisions of clause (c) shall apply to all cases pending before all the competent authorities and all Courts of Law adjudicating the cases under this section.”

¶87

4.5 It was stated at the bar that the validity of the aforesaid amendment is challenged in Writ Petition No.27496 of 2023 which is pending before the learned Single Judge of this Court. This judgment does not touch anything on merits of the said validity proceedings and it is clarified that the said proceedings before learned Single Judge shall be decided on their own merits.

¶88

4.6 However, the aspects which emerged in light of the law laid down in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) , vis-à-vis the amendment in Section 5 and the situation obtained, came to be dealt with by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Dharwad in

¶89

Smt. Gouramma alias Gangamma vs. Deputy Commissioner, Haveri , which was Writ Appeal No.100101 of 2024 decided on 29.07.2024.

¶90

12 -

¶91

NC: 2025:KHC:5013-DB WA No. 110 of 2023

¶92

4.6.1 After noticing the amendment in Section 5, the Division

¶93

Bench observed thus, in para 3(d),

¶94

"The Amendment Act that is made applicable with retrospective effect is only a duplication of the existing legal position. Such duplication happened even in English legislative history, hardly needs to be mentioned. The question of delay is a matter of limitation which this statute is silent about. Clauses (c) and (d), now introduced to Section 5(1) of the Act, do not bring any change in the statutory scheme. At the most, they are declaratory of what the statute has been all through, so far as the limitation period is concerned. Nobody disputes that there was no limitation period earlier and there is no limitation period now too. Laches, which would involve a host of factors, pertains to the Domain of Equity."

¶95

4.6.2 It was observed that in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) , did not speak of limitation period, but focused on the long lapse of time in making the application for restitution of the land, by quoting paragraph 8 above from the said decision, the Division Bench then held as per para 3(f),

¶96

"It may be true, that the legislative debates might have taken place about the observations of the Apex Court in Nekkanti and other such cases while passing the Amendment Bill. That per se does not lend credence to the contention that the

¶97

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:5013-DB WA No. 110 of 2023

¶98

said amendment intends to invalidate the law declared by the highest court of the country which it did after considering all aspects of the matter including the sense of equity & justice. If the Legislature intended to silence the voice of Nekkanti , it would have employed a different terminology. We repeat that, ordinarily, delay is decided by computing the period of limitation prescribed by law, whereas "laches" is decided keeping in view a host of factors. Cases are repleat in Law Reports relating to delay and laches in writ jurisdiction under Articles 12, 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. This is only to illustrate."

¶99

4.7 From the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs.

¶100

N. Murugesan [(2022) 2 SCC 25] , the Division Bench highlighted

¶101

the nice distinction between ‘delay and laches’, as against ‘limitation’. It was observed that the ‘limitation’ is a prescription of time for taking an action as contemplated by the legislature, whereas the concept of ‘delay and laches’ has a different connotation to operate.

¶102

4.8 The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Gouramma (supra) , proceeded on the above reasoning to clarify that the issues were examined without touching the aspects of validity of amendment which is pending adjudication. It was held in Smt. Gouramma (supra) that on the ground of laches, the court would

¶103

14 -

¶104

NC: 2025:KHC:5013-DB WA No. 110 of 2023

¶105

be justified in denying the relief of setting aside the transfer and restoring the land to the applicant when he has approached the court after unreasonable delay and his approaching the court is marred by laches.

¶106

5. The Supreme Court in N. Murugesan (supra) , explained the

¶107

word ‘laches’ thus,

¶108

"The word "laches" is derived from the French language meaning “remissness and slackness". It thus involves unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a claim involving an equitable relief while causing prejudice to the other party. It is neglect on the part of a party to do an act which law requires while asserting a right, and therefore, must stand in the way of the party getting relief or remedy."

¶109

(para 21)

¶110

5.1 The Supreme Court proceeded to observe that the remedy for which the party knocks the doors of the Court may not be provided to him on equitable grounds when such party is guilty of indolence and his action suffers from laches,

¶111

"Two essential factors to be seen are the length of the delay and the nature of acts done during the interval. As stated, it would also involve acquiescence on the part of the party approaching the court apart from the change in position in the

¶112

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:5013-DB WA No. 110 of 2023

¶113

interregnum. Therefore, it would be unjustifiable for a Court of Equity to confer a remedy on a party who knocks its doors when his acts would indicate a waiver of such a right. By his conduct, he has put the other party in a particular position, and therefore, it would be unreasonable to facilitate a challenge before the court. Thus, a man responsible for his conduct on equity is not expected to be allowed to avail a remedy."

¶114

5.2 Though the principles governing overlap, the delay and laches has the facet in equity. Delay is the genus to which the laches and acquiescence are species. The jurisprudential concepts of delay, laches and acquiescence have their own colour and connotation and conceptually often different from crossing the period of limitation prescribed in the statutory provision. Limitation binds the litigant in terms of initiating a legal action or filing any proceedings. Laches concedes an element of culpability in allowing time to pass by in commencing the action in law.

¶115

In light of the above discussion and the position of law that would emerge, in the facts of the case, the restoration of the land cannot be permitted after 32 years. The question of laches would come into play. 32 years having been passed, it would be highly unreasonable, unjust and inequitable, as well as against law to

¶116

16 -

¶117

NC: 2025:KHC:5013-DB WA No. 110 of 2023

¶118

grant any relief to the original grantee-the appellant, permitting restoration of the land and to treat the transfer of the land taken place long back to be null and void.

¶119

6.1 In view of the reasons and discussion as above, the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge does not book any error.

¶120

The appeal is meritless and the same is dismissed.

¶121

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶122

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶123

KPS

¶124

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 107

Sri Vijayendra v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vijayendra v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Unishire Promoters Pvt., Ltd., Vs Sri.N.S.Srikanth

Bnd Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Irshad Khaliq Vs Sri Jayaram

Attur Krishnagiri Kalkuda Daivasthana Trust (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Robo Silicon Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Rekha Vs Sri.Santosh Kumar