Dismissed¶97

Sri. Ramesh v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2026WP/10295/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay — 17,203 days (over four decades) — Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 — dismissal of I.A.No.1 in Misc.Appeal.No.57/2022 — re-grant under Karnataka Village Officer Abolition Act, 1961 with non-alienation condition — sale deed dated 23.09.1974 — knowledge of re-grant since 2010 — plea of ignorance till 2018 rejected — certified copies not sufficient cause — delay and laches — reasonable time (Nekkanti Ram Lakshmi (2020) 14 SCC 232; Chhedi Lal Yadav 2018 (12) SCC 527) — no perversity in impugned order — Writ Petition No. 10295 of 2026 (KVOA), High Court of Karnataka — K.S. Hemalekha, J. — dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The delay of 17,203 days sought to be condoned, being more than four decades, is not only inordinate but extraordinary. ¶70

Sri. Ramesh Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶97

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the trial Court (IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District) on I.A.No.1 in Misc.Appeal.No.57/2022, dismissing condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently rejecting the appeal, warrants interference by this Court.

¶69

Court's answer

The delay of 17,203 days sought to be condoned, being more than four decades, is not only inordinate but extraordinary.

¶70

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners' explanation that they were unaware of the re-grant order till the year 2018 cannot be accepted.

¶87

Key takeaways

The materials on record, including admissions and cross-examination, show that the petitioners had knowledge of the re-grant proceedings at least by the year 2010 and had even earlier initiated proceedings relating to the same property.ratio¶88
Despite having knowledge, no steps were taken within reasonable time, and the petitioners approached the Appellate Court only after suffering adverse orders in earlier proceedings, which disentitles them to any equitable relief.ratio¶92
Mere non-availability of certified copies could not constitute sufficient cause to condone such an enormous delay.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (KVOA) dismissed. The petitioners challenged the order dated 08.12.2025 of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, dismissing I.A.No.1 in Misc.Appeal.No.57/2022 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a delay of 17,203 days, arising from a 1971 re-grant of Survey No.12 (1 acre) under the Karnataka Village Officer Abolition Act, 1961 subject to a non-alienation condition, and a 1974 sale of 16 guntas. Held: the delay of over four decades was inordinate and extraordinary; the plea that the petitioners learnt of the re-grant conditions only in 2018 was rejected, the record (admissions and cross-examination) showing knowledge at least by 2010 and earlier proceedings relating to the same property; non-availability of certified copies was not sufficient cause; having approached the Appellate Court only after adverse orders in earlier proceedings, the petitioners were disentitled to equitable relief; the doctrine of delay and laches applied and the impugned order suffered no perversity. Reliance placed on Nekkanti Ram Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 14 SCC 232 and Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav, 2018 (12) SCC 527, on the requirement that action under a statute prescribing no limitation period be taken within a reasonable time.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:18062 WP No. 10295 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 10295 OF 2026 (KVOA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. RAMESH S/O. LATE. M. MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶9

SRI. M.PRAKASH, S/O. LATE. M. MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶10

SMT. MANJULA, D/O. LATE.M. MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. M. NARAYANAPPA, S/O. LATE. MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶13

ALL ARE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.154,

¶14

UDAYAGIRI NILAYA, 6^TH MAIN ROAD, 6^TH PHASE, I STAGE, MAHAGANAPATHINAGAR, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶15

THE PETITIONERS NO.1, 3 AND 4 HAVE EXECUTED A SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 10-11-2027 IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT NO.2 TO REPRESENT THEM AND HENCE THE

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18062 WP No. 10295 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

PETITIONER NO. 2 IS REPRESENTING THE APPELLANTS NO.S1, 3 AND 4 IN THE ABOVE APPEAL &PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. B VIJAY SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION BANGALORE - 561 203. PRESENTLY,

¶22

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 002

¶23

TAHASILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE - 560 049.

¶24

SMT. ANJANAMMA W/O. LATE. K. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

¶25

SMT. URMILA D/O. LATE. K. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶26

SRI. NANJEGOWDA S/O. LATE. K. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶27

SRI. SURESH S/O. LATE. K. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶28

SRI. MANJUNATH S/O. LATE. K. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶29

RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18062 WP No. 10295 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

KITHAGANOOR VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 049.

¶33

SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O. LATE. M. MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

¶34

SMT.KUSUMA W/O. LATE. M. SHANTHAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶35

SRI. KESHAVA S/O. LATE. M. SHANTHAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶36

SRI. MANOJ S/O. LATE. M. SHANTHAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶37

RESPONDENTS NO.8 TO 11 ARE RESIDING AT AVALAHALLI VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 049

¶38

SMT. MANJULA W/O. V. SAMANGIRAMAN, D/O. LATE. MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶39

SRI.VENKATESH.M S/O. LATE. MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶40

RESPONDENTS NO.12 TO 13 ARE RESIDING AT AVALAHALLI VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,

¶41

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18062 WP No. 10295 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 049.

¶44

&RESPONDENTS

¶45

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH RAYAPPA.,AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

¶46

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN MA NO. 57/2022 WHICH WAS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALURU AND ETC.

¶47

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶48

ORAL ORDER

¶49

Learned Addl. Government Advocate accepts notice

¶50

for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶51

The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners/appellants calling in question the order dated 08.12.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 in Misc.Appeal.No.57/2022 on the file of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short 'the trial Court'), whereby the application i.e., I.A.No.1 filed by the appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking

¶52

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18062 WP No. 10295 of 2026

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

condonation of delay of 17,203 days was dismissed and

¶55

consequently, the appeal itself came to be rejected.

¶56

Brief facts :

¶57

The subject matter of the dispute pertains to a land bearing Survey No.12 measuring 1 acre which was re-granted in favour of Savarappa by the order dated 03.04.1971 under the Provisions of Karnataka Village Officer Abolition Act, 1961 (for short 'KVOA Act') subject to the condition prohibiting alienation without prior permission. It is the case of the petitioners that said Savarappa, in violation of the said condition executed a sale deed dated 23.09.1974 conveying an extent of 16 guntas in favour of the predecessor of respondents 3 to 7. The petitioners contend that they were unaware about the conditions of re-grant and only upon coming to know the same in the year 2018, they initiated proceedings and filed Misc.Appeal.No.57/2022 along with an application i.e., I.A.No.1 seeking condonation of delay of 17,203 days. The

¶58

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18062 WP No. 10295 of 2026

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Appellate Court, upon consideration rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal.

¶61

Learned counsel for the petitioners would

¶62

contend that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occasioned on account of the fact that the petitioners were unaware of the re-grant order conditions imposed therein. It is further contended that despite repeated efforts, certified copies of the orders were not made available by the authorities and only after obtaining the copy in the year 2018, the petitioners could initiate action. It is submitted that in matters involving property rights, liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering the application for condonation of delay and the impugned order suffers from non consideration of the materials placed on record.

¶63

Learned Addl. Government Advocate for

¶64

respondent No.2 submits that the delay of more than

¶65

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:18062 WP No. 10295 of 2026

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

four(4) decades is wholly inordinate and unexplained. It is contended that the petitioners have knowledge of the regrant order much earlier as it is evident from the prior proceedings initiated by him and the plea of ignorance is an afterthought. It is contended that the petitioners have approached the Court after suffering adverse orders in the earlier proceedings and the present Writ Petition is nothing but an attempt to reopen settled issues. Hence, the application filed for condonation of delay was rightly rejected.

¶68

This Court has carefully considered the submissions and perused the materials placed on record.

¶69

The point that arises for consideration is that whether the order passed by the trial Court warrants any interference by this Court .

¶70

The delay sought to be condoned is 17,203 days i.e., more than four(4) decades, which is not only inordinate but extraordinary. The law of limitation, though

¶71

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:18062 WP No. 10295 of 2026

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

procedural, is founded on Sound Public Policy to ensure finality to litigation and to prevent stale claims from being agitated.

¶74

The Apex Court in the case Nekkanti Ram Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and another¹ has held at paragraph No.8 as under:

¶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 moto action may be taken. This Court in Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav and also in Ningappa v. Commr. 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. That action arose under the provisions of a similar Act which provided for

¶76

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶77

¶78

NC: 2026:KHC:18062 WP No. 10295 of 2026

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

restoration of certain lands to farmers which were sold for arrears of rent or from which they were ejected for arrears of land from 1-1-1939 to 31-121950. This relief was granted to the farmers due to flood in 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 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 v. Commr., Maddurappa v. State of Karnataka and G.Maregouda v. Commr. 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. Order accordingly. =

¶81

The Apex Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav and others Vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (Dead)

¶82

10 -

¶83

NC: 2026:KHC:18062 WP No. 10295 of 2026

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

through LR's and others² has held at paragraph No.13 as under:

¶86

<13. In our view, where no period of limitation is prescribed, the action must be taken, whether suo motu or on the application of the parties, within a reasonable time. Undoubtedly, what is reasonable time would depend on the circumstances of each case and the purpose of the statute. In the case before us, we are clear that the action is grossly delayed and taken beyond reasonable time, particularly, in view of the fact that the land was transferred several times during this period, obviously, in the faith that it is not encumbered by any rights. =

¶87

The explanation offered by the petitioners that

¶88

they were unaware of the re-grant order till the year 2018 cannot be accepted. The materials on record including the admissions and cross-examination, clearly indicates that the petitioners have knowledge of the re-grant proceedings at least by the year 2010 and even prior thereto, they had initiated proceedings relating to the very

¶89

2 2018 (12) SCC 527

¶90

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:18062 WP No. 10295 of 2026

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

same property. The conduct of the petitioners demonstrates lack of diligence. Despite having knowledge no steps were taken within reasonable time. The petitioners have approached the Appellate Court only after suffering adverse orders in earlier proceedings, which disentitles them to any equitable relief.

¶93

Mere non-availability of the certified copies could not constitute sufficient cause to condone such an enormous delay. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate continuous and bona-fide efforts, explaining the delay. It is well settled that "a sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 must be shown with bona-fide and absence of negligence".

¶94

In the present case, the delay is attributable to inaction and negligence on the part of the petitioners. The doctrine of 'delay and laches' squarely applies. The law does not assist those who sleep over their rights and the Court cannot come to the aid of such litigants.

¶95

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:18062 WP No. 10295 of 2026

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners have failed to make out any sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The impugned order passed by the Appellate Court does not suffer inequality or perversity, warranting interference. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered and the Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits on the ground of 'delay and laches'. The law does not favour those who approach the Court in lethargic and indolent manner.

¶98

Sd/-

¶99

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶100

PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Sri. Ramesh v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ramesh v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumari Kusuma Vs Smt Nagalakshmi C

Mr. Manjunatha L Vs Mr. Narayanaswamy C

E. Balasundaram Vs Mangala Mary

Mr. S.P.Muniraju Vs Mr.T S Bhaskar Reddy

Smt.Manjula T.S. Vs Smt.Manjula N

Sri Shivanadakumar J Vs Smt Shamala S K