Writ appeal filed with an application to condone 1226 days' delay, citing the 2023 amendment to Section 5 of the PTCL Act and confusion over earlier appeals. The court found the explanation did not constitute sufficient cause, dismissed the condonation application and consequently dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:31281-DB WA No. 1352 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1352 OF 2025 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
W/O LATE YATHIRAJ
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
D/O LATE YATHIRAJ AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka
D/O LATE YATHIRAJ
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
ALL R/AT SHANKARIPURAM NEAR TALUK OFFICE ADVALLI, HASSAN - 573 201
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI KARUMBAIAH T.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2026:KHC:31281-DB WA No. 1352 of 2025
HC-KAR
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
HASSAN - 573 201
HASSAN - 573 201
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R-1 TO 3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.No.24047/2016 AND DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
NC: 2026:KHC:31281-DB WA No. 1352 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
HC-KAR
W.P.No.10158/2015(SC-ST), and were under the impression that the said appeal would suffice, but subsequently realised that they were also required to challenge the impugned order separately insofar as it relates to W.P.No.24047/2016(SC-ST) and thereby they have filed the present appeal.
Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE
KMV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17
1 issue framed by the court
Should a delay of 1226 days in filing the writ appeal be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act given the appellants' explanation regarding the 2023 PTCL Act amendment?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Saraswathi
C.Y. Dharmesh
C.Y. Chaithra
Nayana
State of Karnataka, Revenue Department
M.R. Yashoda
Vibhu Bakhru
K.S. Hemalekha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
