Dismissed¶51

Smt. Vajramma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Feb 2026WA/466/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PTCL Act resumption appeal dismissed for unexplained delay; Karnataka SC/ST prohibited-transfer land (Survey No.12/7, New Survey No.34, Manavarthekaval Village, Uttarahalli Hobli); condonation of 819-day delay refused (I.A.No.1/2024 dismissed); only explanation was review petition R.P.No.84/2021 dismissed 27.06.2023; recall applications I.A.Nos.1/2025 and 2/2025 allowed and order dated 02.06.2025 recalled with 15-day delay condoned; appeal filed under Section 4, Karnataka High Court Act against Single Judge order dated 09.12.2019 in W.P.No.45868/2017 (SC/ST); grant Order No.DDS5/1956-57 dated 21.06.1957; sale deed dated 30.05.1995.

What did the court decide?

Applications I.A.Nos.1/2025 and 2/2025 are allowed: the 15-day delay in filing the recall application is condoned and the order dated 02.06.2025 is recalled. ¶33

Smt. Vajramma Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 819 days in filing Writ Appeal No. 466 of 2024 should be condoned (I.A.No.1/2024), given the appellant's contention that the period up to March, 2022 stands excluded. +1 more

¶45

Court's answer

Even overlooking the delay up to the disposal of the review petition (R.P.No.84/2021, dismissed 27.06.2023), the appeal remains delayed, and there is no credible explanation for such delay.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

Applications I.A.Nos.1/2025 and 2/2025 are allowed: the 15-day delay in filing the recall application is condoned and the order dated 02.06.2025 is recalled.

¶33

Key takeaways

The application I.A.No.1/2024 seeking condonation of the 819-day delay in filing the appeal is dismissed, and consequently the writ appeal is also dismissed.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal No. 466 of 2024 (SC-ST), High Court of Karnataka (DB: Vibhu Bakhru, CJ and C.M. Poonacha, J.; oral judgment per the Chief Justice), decided 26.02.2026. The appellant Vajramma, daughter of the original grantee Depot Muniyappa, impugned the Single Judge's order dated 09.12.2019 in W.P.No.45868/2017 (SC/ST), which had allowed respondent No.4 Jayanthi Shivaram's petition and set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 21.07.2015 and the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 07.02.2017 ordering resumption, under the PTCL Act, of 1 acre 36 guntas in Survey No.12/7 (New Survey No.34), Manavarthekaval Village, granted to the appellant's father on 21.06.1957 and sold to respondent No.4 by sale deed dated 30.05.1995. Earlier, I.A.Nos.1/2025 and 2/2025 were allowed: the 15-day delay in filing the recall application was condoned and the order dated 02.06.2025 was recalled. On condonation of the 819-day delay (I.A.No.1/2024), the court noted the appeal was filed in March, 2024, more than four years after the impugned order; the only ground offered was review petition R.P.No.84/2021, dismissed on 27.06.2023, with no explanation thereafter. Holding that even excluding the period up to disposal of the review petition the appeal remained delayed without credible explanation, the court dismissed I.A.No.1/2024 and, consequently, dismissed the appeal.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:11922-DB WA No. 466 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 466 OF 2024 (SC-ST)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. VAJRAMMA D/O LATE DEPO MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT A K COLONY THALAGHATTAPURA VILLAGE AND POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGLAURU - 560 061

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. PRADEEP M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGLAURU - 560 009

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:11922-DB WA No. 466 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

KANDAYA BHAVANA, 2^nd FLOOR BENGALURU - 560 009

¶21

SMT. JAYATNHI SHIVARAM W/O SHIVARAM AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.109, 4^th CROSS R K LAYOUT, PADMANABHANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 070

¶22

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.74 RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT GUBALALA THALAGHATTAPURA BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 062

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R3; SRI. YATHIN B, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.45868/2017 DATED 09/12/2019 AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:11922-DB WA No. 466 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶33

For the reasons stated in the applications―I.A.Nos.1/2025 and 2/2025, to condone the delay of 15 days in filing the recall application and for recalling the order dated 02.06.2025, the same are allowed. The delay of 15 days in filing the recall application is condoned, and the order dated 02.06.2025 is recalled.

¶34

The appellant has filed the above captioned appeal impugning an order dated 09.12.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.45868/2017 (SC/ST), whereby the writ petition preferred by respondent No.4 challenging the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner (respondent No.3) and the Deputy Commissioner (respondent No.2), directing the resumption of subject land was allowed.

¶35

The appellant states that 1 acre 36 guntas of land falling in Survey No.12/7 (New Survey No.34) of Manavarthekaval Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru [ subject land ]

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:11922-DB WA No. 466 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

was granted to her father, Sri. Depot Muniyappa [ original grantee ] on 21.06.1957 (Order No.DDS5/1956-57). The original grantee along with his wife and daughter sold the land to respondent No.4, Jayanthi Shivaram, under a registered sale deed dated 30.05.1995. The grant of the subject land was subject to the condition that it would not be alienated for a period of 15 years. Therefore, the original grantee, his wife and daughter had sold the land after the period of restriction had elapsed.

¶39

The appellant (daughter of the original grantee) instituted a case (K.SC-ST(S)14/2014-15) before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [ PTCL Act ] seeking resumption of the subject land on the ground that it was alienated in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act.

¶40

It is the appellant's contention that even though the period of restriction (15 years) had elapsed, the alienation was void as it was without permission of the State Government. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the by an order dated 21.07.2015 and passed an order for resumption of the subject land.

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:11922-DB WA No. 466 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Respondent No.4 filed an appeal against the said decision to the Deputy Commissioner [K(SC-ST(A) No.81/2015-16] which was rejected by order dated 07.02.2017.

¶44

The writ petition preferred by respondent No.4 against the orders dated 21.07.2015 and 07.02.2017 was allowed on the ground that the proceedings for resumption of the land had been instituted after an inordinate delay of 19 years.

¶45

The present appeal was filed in March, 2024, which was more than 4 years after the impugned order. However, the appellant contends that the delay is only 819 days and the period of delay till March, 2022 is required to be excluded. The only ground furnished for the delay in filing the present appeal is that the appellant had preferred a review petition [R.P.No.84/2021] which was dismissed on 27.06.2023. There is no explanation for the delay for the period, after the review petition had been disposed of.

¶46

Thus, even if we overlook the delay till the disposal of the review petition, the present appeal is delayed. There is no credible explanation for such delay.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:11922-DB WA No. 466 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50