Dismissed¶87

Sri. Ramanna v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Feb 2026WA/938/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PTCL Act; Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978; Section 5(1); clauses (c) and (d); Act No.30 of 2023; delay and laches; reasonable time; restoration/resumption of granted land; Grow More Food scheme; Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (2020) 14 SCC 232; Vivek M. Hinduja (2019 Kar.LJ 819 (SC)); Smt. Gouramma @ Gangamma (KHC-D:10666-DB); Writ Appeal No. 938 of 2023 (SCST); NC: 2026:KHC:10444-DB; Tumakuru/Tumkuru District; Shira Taluk; Kallukote village; Sy.No.90/1; Assistant Commissioner Madhugiri Sub-Division; District Commissioner; inordinate delay of 48 years.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ appeal was dismissed, upholding the learned Single Judge's order, and all pending applications were disposed of. ¶87

Sri. Ramanna Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ appeal was dismissed, upholding the learned Single Judge's order, and all pending applications were disposed of.

¶87

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings for restoration of the granted land under the PTCL Act, commenced about 48 years after the alienation, were sustainable despite the absence of a prescribed limitation period, in view of the law in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja. +1 more

¶55

Court's answer

The delay of almost half a century in commencing the restoration proceedings is extraordinarily excessive; the learned Single Judge therefore rightly held that the subject land could not be restored, and this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

¶83

Ratio / Principle

The Court considered the import of the amendment of Section 5(1) of the PTCL Act by Act No.30 of 2023 through the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Gouramma @ Gangamma (read with Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja) and, proceeding on that basis, found no grounds to interfere with the Single Judge's order dismissing restoration on the ground of delay.

¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (SCST) against the order dated 12.07.2023 of the learned Single Judge allowing W.P. No. 23013/2022, whereby restoration of granted land under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 was refused on the ground of inordinate delay. The subject land (6 acres, Sy.No.90/1, Kallukote village, Shira Taluk) was granted on 27.03.1944 under the Grow More Food scheme to Sri Madalur Nayaka, confirmed by order dated 16.11.1961 in favour of his widow Smt. Kempamma, and alienated under registered sale deed dated 07.11.1966. The resumption application was filed only on 18.02.2015, about 48 years after the alienation; it was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner (order dated 17.01.2018) and the appeal was rejected by the District Commissioner (order dated 21.10.2022). Following Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (2020) 14 SCC 232, Vivek M. Hinduja (2019 Kar.LJ 819 (SC)), and the Division Bench decision in Smt. Gouramma @ Gangamma (KHC-D:10666-DB) on the amendment of Section 5(1) of the PTCL Act by Act No.30 of 2023 (clauses (c) and (d)), the Division Bench (per Vibhu Bakhru, CJ) held the delay of almost half a century extraordinarily excessive, found no grounds to interfere, and dismissed the appeal; all pending applications were disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:10444-DB WA No. 938 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 938 OF 2023 (SCST)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. RAMANNA SON OF LATE SRI. NIRAGANTI KODAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YERS, SANTHEPETE, SIRA TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572137

¶12

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. RAMAKKA DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI. KARIYA NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, SANTHEPETE, SIRA TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572137

¶14

SMT. KANTHAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI. KARIYA NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, SANTHEPETE, SIRA TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572137

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SMT. RASHMI PARASHURAM, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PARASHURAM A L, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:10444-DB WA No. 938 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

MULTI-STOREYED BUILDING DR. AMBEDAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572101

¶23

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION MADHUGIRI, TUMKURU DISTRICT572101

¶24

THE TAHSILDAR SIRA TALUK, SIRA TUMKURU DISTRICT 572101

¶25

SMT. MUDDUNAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O. LATE SRI. S.H. NAGARAJU, R/AT ARASINAKERE-AMARAPURA ROAD, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 561 202

¶26

SMT. MAMATHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, D/O. LATE SRI. S. H. NAGARAJU, W/O SRI. THIPPESWAMY, R/AT MUDDUSHREE NILAYA, JYOTHINAGARA, BEHIND NALLAMBA HOTEL, SIRA TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 137

¶27

SRI. S. N. CHANDAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRI. S.H. NAGARAJU, R/AT ARASINAKEREAMARAPURA ROAD,

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:10444-DB WA No. 938 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 561 202

¶31

SRI. S.N. PAVAN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRI. S.H. NAGARAJU, R/AT ARASINAKEREAMARAPURA ROAD, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 561 202

¶32

SRI. S. N. GAGAN AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRI. S.H. NAGARAJU, R/AT ARASINAKEREAMARAPURA ROAD, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 561 202

¶33

SMT. SUMITHRA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O LATE. SRI. H. SHANTHARAJU, R/AT AMRUTHAVARASHINI, SAPTHAGIRI EXTENSION, SIRA TOWN, TUMAKURU DSITRICT - 572 137.

¶34

SRI. S. KIRAN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI. H. SHANTHARAJU, R/AT AMRUTHAVARSHINI, SAPTHAGIRI EXTENSION, SIRA TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 137.

¶35

SRI. S. ARUN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI. H. SHANTHARAJU, R/AT AMRUTHAVARSHINI, SAPTHAGIRI EXTENSION,

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:10444-DB WA No. 938 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

SIRA TOWN,

¶40

TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 137.

¶41

SRI. S. DARSHAN AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI. H. SHANTHARAJU, R/AT AMRUTHAVARSHINI, SAPTHAGIRI EXTENSION, SIRA TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 137.

¶42

SRI. S.H. NATARAJU AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI.T. HANUMANTHAPPA, R/AT NO. 619, 4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, PARIMALANAGARA, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 096.

¶43

SRI. H. LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE. SRI.T.HANUMANTHAPPA, R/AT SRIRANGA, JYOTHINAGAR, NEAR KOLLAPURADAMMA TEMPLE,SIRA TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 137.

¶44

SRI. H. S. LOKESH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI.T. HANUMANTHAPPA, R/AT NO.64, 1ST BM MAIN, 2ND CROSS, PIPELINE, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040.

¶45

…RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B G, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. VARUN PAPIREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R15)

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:10444-DB WA No. 938 of 2023

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 12/07/2023 IN WP NO.23013/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS WRIT PETITION NO.23013/2022 FILED BY RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 16/PETITIONERS

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶54

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

¶55

The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 23013 of 2022 (SCST). The private respondents have filed the said petition impugning the order dated 17.01.2018, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, and the order dated 21.10.2022, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru District, directing the restoration of the subject land. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that the proceedings for restoration of the subject land had been instituted after an inordinate delay of 48 years.

¶56

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:10444-DB WA No. 938 of 2023

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

The appellants state that the land measuring 6 acres falling in Sy.No.90/1 (new Sy.No.90/2, presently renumbered as Sy.No.90/3) of Kallukote village of Shira Taluk [ the subject land ], was granted in favour of Sri Madalur Nayaka [ the original grantee ] on 27.03.1944 under the Grow More Food scheme [ GMF Scheme ] for a period of five years from 1944-45 to 1948-49. Thereafter, the State Government, by an order dated 16.11.1961, confirmed and granted the subject land in favour of Smt. Kempamma, the widow of the original grantee.

¶59

One Sri Karinayaka, the son of the original grantee sold the subject land under the registered sale deed dated 07.11.1966 to one Sri Hanumanthappa, who is the ancestor of respondent Nos.5 to 16.

¶60

The appellants claim to be the descendants of the original grantee. They filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner on 18.02.2015 seeking resumption of the land on the ground that its alienation was in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [ PTCL Act ]. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the said application by an

¶61

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:10444-DB WA No. 938 of 2023

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

order dated 17.01.2018 and declared that the alienation in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 16 was void. The said respondents preferred an appeal before the District Commissioner, which was rejected by an Order dated 21.10.2022.

¶64

It is apparent from the above that the proceedings for restoration were commenced about 48 years after the subject land was alienated. In Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi V/s State of Karnataka¹ as well as Vivek M. Hinduja and Others Vs. M. Aswatha² , the Supreme Court held that the applications for restoration of the subject land after an inordinate delay were not maintainable. The provisions of Section 5(1) of the PTCL Act were subsequently amended by the introduction of clauses (c) and (d), by virtue of Act No.30 of 2023. The import of the said amendment came to be considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Smt.

¶65

Gouramma @ Gangamma Vs. The Deputy Commissioner and

¶66

others³ and the Court observed as under:

¶67

"(d) 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

¶68

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶69

2 2019 Kar.LJ 819 (SC)

¶70

3 KHC-D:10666-DB

¶71

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:10444-DB WA No. 938 of 2023

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

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.

¶74

(e) Nekkanti supra does not speak of “limitation period” at all. What it discusses is, the long lapse of time between alienation of granted land and the filing of claim for its resumption. Observations occurring in para 8 of the decision lend support to this view:

¶75

“8. 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 the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav (D) Thr. Lrs., (2017) 6 Scale 459 and also in the case of Ningappa v. Dy. Commissioner (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. This relief was granted to the farmers due to flood in the Kosi River which make agricultural operations impossible. 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 respondentRajappa was made after an unreasonably long period and was liable to be dismissed on that ground.

¶76

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:10444-DB WA No. 938 of 2023

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

Accordingly, the judgments of the Karnataka High Court, namely, R. Rudrappa v. Deputy Commissioner, (2000) 1 Karnataka Law Journal, 523, Maddurappa v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 4 Karnataka Law Journal, 303 and G. Maregouda v. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga, (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. …..”

¶79

(emphasis is ours)

¶80

Apparently, the law declared by the Apex Court in the above case has not been altered by the subject amendment, even in the least.

¶81

(f) 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 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 replete 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.

¶82

(g) There is a marked difference between ‘delay & laches’ that operate in equity and ‘limitation & delay’ that obtain in law."

¶83

In the present case, the delay of almost half a century is extraordinarily excessive. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the subject land could not be restored. We find no

¶84