Dismissed¶81

Shri Shekharappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2026WA/1173/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal dismissed; Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act 1978 restoration claim; grant of 1 acre 9 guntas dated 29.10.1984; dispossession 1993; Deputy Commissioner order 09.02.2004; endorsement Annexure-L 15.12.2010; writ petition delayed over 7 years; abuse of process of law; Article 226 discretionary power and delay; conduct of party; compromise Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC; Rs.1,90,000 received; cost Rs.25,000 by Single Judge; Davanagere; reliance on ILR 2020 KAR 303 (Narayanaswamy); WA No. 1173 of 2023 (SCST); decided 02.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition, filed belatedly after settling the dispute with respondent No.4 in O.S.No.127/2005 and with no explanation for the delay of more than 7 years, is an abuse of process of law. ¶66

Shri Shekharappa Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶81

Issue for consideration

Whether the subject matter of the dispute falls within the purview of the PTCL Act, i.e., whether the appellant's grant was a PTCL grant or a general grant outside the Act. +2 more

¶75

Court's answer

The appellant's submission that the subject matter would not come within the purview of the PTCL Act is liable to be rejected, as all along he contended he belongs to a deprived community whose possession was taken by respondent No.4 in violation of the PTCL Act, he pursued two rounds of litigation before the PTCL authorities, and he compromised with respondent No.4 accepting an amount.

¶75

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition, filed belatedly after settling the dispute with respondent No.4 in O.S.No.127/2005 and with no explanation for the delay of more than 7 years, is an abuse of process of law.

¶66

Key takeaways

The power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being discretionary, cannot be exercised in a case where the litigant approaches the Court with enormous delay and without assigning any reason for such delay; the Court is also required to take note of the conduct of the party while exercising that discretionary power.ratio¶66
No error or perversity is found in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge; its reasoning does not call for interference in the intra-court appeal, and the appeal is devoid of merit.ratio¶80

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (Anu Sivaraman and Vijaykumar A. Patil JJ.; CAV judgment per Vijaykumar A. Patil J.) rejects a writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 against the learned Single Judge's order dated 26.07.2023 in W.P.No.36072/2011 (SC-ST), which had dismissed, with costs of Rs.25,000/- on the appellant, the 2011 challenge to the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 09.02.2004 confirming rejection of the appellant's PTCL restoration application after remand, and the endorsement dated 15.12.2010 (Annexure-L). The appellant, claiming grant of 1 acre 9 guntas by order dated 29.10.1984 and alleged dispossession by respondent No.4 in 1993, had litigated twice before the PTCL authorities, lost in W.P.No.30191/1998 (dismissed 09.12.1999), withdrew W.A.No.5031/2000, and thereafter compromised with respondent No.4 in O.S.No.127/2005 under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, receiving Rs.1,90,000/- and giving up his claims. His writ petition filed with an unexplained delay of more than 7 years was held to be an abuse of process of law. Held: the discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised where the litigant approaches with enormous unexplained delay, and the conduct of the party must be weighed. The appellant's contention that his grant was a general grant outside the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 was rejected, the Court taking note of the learned Single Judge's reliance on ILR 2020 KAR 303 (Sri Narayanaswamy). No order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:5688-DB WA No. 1173 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1173 OF 2023 (SCST)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SHRI SHEKHARAPPA S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEASR R/O CHIKKAKURUBARAHALLI CHANANGIRI TAULK

¶12

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. R.A. DEVANAND, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by RUPA V HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE -560 001.

¶18

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE

¶19

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001.

¶20

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVAANGERE DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:5688-DB WA No. 1173 of 2023

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

SHRI SHEKARAPPA S/O PATEL BASAPPA R/O CHIKKAKURUBARAHALLI CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

¶27

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 26/07/2023 IN WP NO.36072/2011 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION IN ENTIRETY AND ETC.

¶28

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 28.01.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶30

CAV JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

¶32

This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka

¶33

High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.36072/2011 (SC-ST).

¶34

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:5688-DB WA No. 1173 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Sri.R.A.Devanand, learned counsel appearing

¶37

for the appellant submits that the order of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the material on record. The grant made in favour of the appellant was not under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PTCL Act') but it was a general grant. Hence, the provisions of the PTCL Act has no application to the case on hand. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has not recorded any finding on the impugned order at Annexure-J dated 09.02.2004 with regard to the nature of grant. It is further submitted

¶38

that mere initiation of the proceedings by the appellant under the provisions of the PTCL Act, cannot be the basis to come to the conclusion that the provisions of the PTCL Act has application to the case on hand. It is also

¶39

submitted that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground of delay in filing the writ petition without appreciating the aspect that the appellant

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:5688-DB WA No. 1173 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

was pursuing other remedies, is a rustic villager and his right cannot be scuttled on the ground of delay. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

¶43

We have heard the arguments of the learned

¶44

counsel for the appellant and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶45

The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 09.02.2004 of the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere, the endorsement dated 15.12.2010 and

¶46

sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to restore the land in favour of the appellant. The learned Single Judge, considering the rival submissions and taking note of the material available

¶47

on record, proceeded to dispose the writ petition by imposing cost of Rs.25,000/- on the appellant.

¶48

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:5688-DB WA No. 1173 of 2023

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

The appellant claimed that he was granted land

¶51

measuring 1 acre 9 guntas vide order dated 29.10.1984 as he was in unauthorized occupation and cultivation of the land in question. It is averred that the saguvali chit came

¶52

to be issued as per Annexure-C and the revenue records were mutated in the name of the appellant. It is further averred that in the year 1993, the respondent No.4 illegally dispossessed the appellant and hence, the appellant filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the PTCL Act. The said Authority considered the dispossession as the deemed transfer of the land in violation of the provisions of the

¶53

PTCL Act and ordered that such action is null and void. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was assailed by the respondent No.4 before the Deputy Commissioner. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the respondent No.4 on the ground that as per the report of the revenue inspector, the appellant was never in possession of the granted land and remitted the matter

¶54

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:5688-DB WA No. 1173 of 2023

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

back to the Assistant Commissioner. The appellant challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner in W.P.No.30191/1998. This Court, vide order dated 09.12.1999 dismissed the writ petition. The appellant challenged the same in W.A.No.5031/2000 which came to be withdrawn on 15.11.2000.

¶57

The records indicate that after remand, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the application of the appellant and the same was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 09.02.2004. In the meanwhile respondent No.4 filed O.S.No.127/2005 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Davanagere, for the relief of declaration that the respondent No.4 is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and further relief of permanent injunction against the appellant herein. The appellant and the respondent No.4 filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the said suit, which came to be decreed as per the compromise petition. The

¶58

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:5688-DB WA No. 1173 of 2023

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

compromise petition indicates that the appellant has received Rs.1,90,000/- from the respondent No.4. The records further indicate that the appellant assailed the compromise in O.S.No.127/2005 before the Deputy

¶62

Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner issued an endorsement at Annexure-L indicating that the appellant's claim for restoration of the land is already rejected by the Assistant Commissioner which has been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. The order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 09.02.2004 and the endorsement at Annexure-L were challenged in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the fact that the writ petition is filed with a delay of more than 7 years and by considering the various contentions advanced, dismissed the writ petition.

¶63

A perusal of the averments made in the writ petition indicates that there is no explanation whatsoever with regard to the delay of more than 7 years in filing the writ petition. This Court is of the view that the appellant is

¶64

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:5688-DB WA No. 1173 of 2023

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

seeking to assail the order dated 09.02.2004 and the endorsement dated 15.12.2010 belatedly that too, after settling the dispute with the respondent No.4 in O.S.No.127/2005. The filing of the writ petition is an abuse of process of law. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being discretionary, cannot be exercised in a case where the litigant approaches the Court with enormous delay and without assigning any reason for such delay. The Court is also required to take note of the conduct of the party while exercising the discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶67

The learned Single Judge, taking note of the fact that the appellant contested the suit, thereafter entered into a compromise with the respondent No.4 by receiving a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- giving up all his claims with regard to the suit schedule property in favour of the respondent No.4 in the said suit and de hors all these events, files a writ petition in the year 2011 challenging

¶68

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:5688-DB WA No. 1173 of 2023

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

the order of 2004. In our considered view, the reasoning

¶71

of the learned Single Judge do not call for any interference

¶72

in this intra Court appeal. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the decision rendered by this Court in the

¶73

case of SRI.NARAYANASWAMY Vs. THE DISTRICT

¶74

COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT AND

¶75

OTHERS¹ , recorded the finding that the appellant cannot maintain the application before the Deputy Commissioner and dismissed the writ petition with costs. Now, the appellant is contending that the subject matter in dispute would not come in the purview of the PTCL Act. Such a submission is also liable to be rejected as all along the appellant has contended that he belongs to a deprived community, possession is taken over by the respondent No.4 which is in violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act and after two rounds of litigation before the Authorities under the PTCL Act and having compromised the dispute with the respondent No.4 by accepting the amount, the

¶76

1 ILR 2020 KAR 303

¶77