✦ High Court of India

Writ Appeal No. 905 of 2023 · The High Court

Case Details

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5783-DB WA No. 905 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 905 OF 2023 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: 1. M. MAHANTESH, S/O MALLIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, (ACUTAL AGE 50 YEARS), 2. MARAKKA, D/O LATE RUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 3. N. THIPPESWAMY, S/O LATE RUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 4. THIPPAMMA, D/O LATE THIPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 5. SAKAMMA, W/O LATE D.T. THIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 6. T. AKASH, S/O LATE D.T. THIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 7. T. NAVEEN, S/O LATE D.T. THIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, Digitally signed by PRAJWAL A Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5783-DB WA No. 905 of 2023 8. T. TARUN, S/O LATE D.T. THIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 9. GANGAMMA, D/O LATE THIPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 10. CHOWDAMMA, D/O LATE THIPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 11. D.T. BHAGYAMMA, D/O LATE THIPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 12. LAKSHMIDEVI, D/O LATE THIPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 13. D.T. MUNIYAPPA, S/O LATE THIPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 14. BASAVARAJ, S/O LATE THIPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 15. GURUSWAMY, S/O LATE THIPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 16. THIPPASWAMY, S/O LATE THIPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 17. RUDRAMUNI, S/O LATE THIPPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 18. CHOWDAMMA, D/O LATE THIPPAIAH, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5783-DB WA No. 905 of 2023 AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 19. SHANTHAMMA, W/O LATE MALLIAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 20. SHIVANNA, S/O LATE MALLIAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS, 20(A). LAKSHMIDEVI, W/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 20(B). S. ISHWARAYA D/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 28.10.2024. 21. BORAIAH, S/O LATE MALLIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 22. BASAMMA, W/O LATE DURGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 23. THIPPESWAMY, S/O LATE DURGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 24. THIPPERAMMA, D/O LATE DURGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 25. ANJINI, S/O LATE DURGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5783-DB WA No. 905 of 2023 …APPELLANTS 26. THIPPESWAMY, S/O LATE RUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 27. RAMACHANDRAPPA, S/O LATE RUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NAYAKANAHATTI VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501.

Legal Reasoning

(BY SRI. A.C. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA-577 501. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA-577 501. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501. 5. SHARIFA BI, W/O LATE ABDUL GAFOOR, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O NAYAKANAHATTI VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5783-DB WA No. 905 of 2023 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501. 6. S.K. SARVAMANGALA, S/O LATE K.M. SHANTHAVEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT NAYAKANAHATTI VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501. 7. K.M. VISHWANATHAIAH, S/O LATE K.M. SHANTHAVEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NAYAKANAHATTI VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501. 8. K.M. PRAKASH, S/O LATE K.M. SHANTHAVEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NAYAKANAHATTI VILLAGE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501. 9. SHANKARAPPA, S/O GOWDAGERE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS, 9(A) HAMPAMMA, W/O SHAKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.112, PUMP HOUSE ROAD, NAYAKANAHATTY, BILEKAL BADAVANE, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA-577 536. 9(B) RATNAMMA .S, W/O PUTTANNA .K.N, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NO. 51, SEVALAL, TEMPLE ROAD, MANUMAINHATTI, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5783-DB WA No. 905 of 2023 NAYAKANAHATTY POST, CHITRADURGA-577 536. 9(C) S. CHANNAPPA, S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.34, NAYAKANAHATTY, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA-577 536. 9(D) PRASANNA KUMAR .S, S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT PUMP HOUSE ROAD, NAYAKANAHATTY, BILEKAL BADAVANE, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA-577 536. 9(E) SWAMY.S, S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT PUMP HOUSE ROAD, NAYAKANAHATTY, BILEKAL BADAVANE, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA-577 536. 9(F) MANGALAMMA, W/O MANJANNA .L, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT 40TH CROSS, MALAPPANAHALLI, MATADAKURUBARAHATTI, CHITRADURGA-577 536. 9(G) S. NAGARAJ, S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT PUMP HOUSE ROAD, NAYAKANAHATTY, BILEKAL BADAVANE, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA-577 536 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5783-DB WA No. 905 of 2023 9(H) THIPPESHI .S, S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.223, PUMP HOUSE ROAD, NAYAKANAHATTY, BILEKAL BADAVANE, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA-577 536. 9(I) TIPPAKKA .S, W/O SOMASEKARA .T, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT 767, JANATHA COLONY, MOLAKALMURU,, CHITRADURGA-577 529. 9(J) SAROJAMMA .S, W/O SANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT PUMP HOUSE ROAD, NAYAKANAHATTY, BILEKAL BADAVANE, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA-577 536. 9(K) RAMESH .S, S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT PUMP HOUSE ROAD, NAYAKANAHATTY, BILEKAL BADAVANE, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA-577 536. AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 28.10.2024. (BY SRI. H.K. KANTHARAJ, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVI .H.K, ADVOCATE FOR C/R9 AND R9(A-K), SMT. SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1-R4 …RESPONDENTS - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5783-DB WA No. 905 of 2023 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No-7739/2022 DATED 12.07.2023 AND TO ALLOW THE WP BY GRANTING THE RELIEFS AS PRAYED. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the appeal has been heard. 2. Mr.Balaraj, learned counsel for the appellants has filed an amended cause title. The same is taken on record. 3. The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.7739/2022, whereby the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants herein by stating in paragraph No.5 onwards as under: 5. In the light of law laid down by the Apex Court, the restoration petition filed by the petitioners claiming to be the legal heirs of the original grantee is liable to be rejected on two counts. Firstly, there is a delay of 38 years in - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5783-DB WA No. 905 of 2023 initiating action. The Deputy Commissioner has rightly examined the delay and laches in moving the application. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment has held that where statute does not provide for limitation, the authorities and State must act consciously and if the process of invoking the provisions of statute is delayed and is initiated after long lapse of time, the delay by itself would act as an impediment. Thus, without exception and coming across various rules of law, the Apex Court has categorically stated the law in respect of exercise of power/jurisdiction under statute where no limitation is stipulated. The law on the point of delay and laches to invoke the provisions of PTCL Act is well settled by catena of judgments. 6. It is borne out from the records that the property has changed several hands. Admittedly the first sale is of the year 1966 and the grantees family have sold the granted land under different sale deeds. Therefore, the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Chhedi Lal Yadav .vs. Hari Kishore Yadav [(2018) 12 SCC 527] is also squarely applicable to the present case on hand. The Apex Court was of the view that if there is inordinate, unexplained and unjustified delay on the part of the applicant in seeking restoration of the land, such inaction would create a right in favour of other party. Therefore, the Apex Court was of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5783-DB WA No. 905 of 2023 the view that time must be reckoned reasonably, not only in order to preserve the rights and advantages which party possesses but equally to protect each party from losses he ought not to suffer. The registered sale deeds are public documents and after verifying the public documents, if citizens enter into further transaction believing such public documents to be genuine, the subsequent alienations cannot be set at naught by showing leniency to aggrieved party who has slept over his rights, if rights are crystallized on account of inaction on the part of the original grantee. The said application has to be rejected on this count also. 7. The contention of the petitioners that they are class-I heirs and that alienations made in 1966 are all fraudulent transactions, and the sale was not by the class one heirs but by strangers are all disputed questions of fact, and the same cannot be looked into in PTCL proceedings. Respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner was justified in not entertaining the restoration petition. Respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner has rightly dismissed the appeal. I do not find any error or illegality in the concurrent orders passed by the authorities. 8. In view of discussion made supra, I proceed to pass the following: - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:5783-DB WA No. 905 of 2023

Decision

ORDER (i) The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed; In view of dismissal of writ petition, I.A.No.1/2023, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of. 4. The submission of Mr.Balaraj, learned counsel for the appellants is that the granted land has been sold by the legal heirs of the brother of the original grantee without his consent. 5. We are afraid the said submission would not be tenable for the reasoning given by the learned single judge which we have reproduced in the above paragraph. 6. Suffice to state that, the learned Single Judge has referred to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER, [(2020) 14 SCC 232] AND MR.VIVEK M. HINDUJA AND OTHERS VS. MR.ASHWATHA AND OTHERS [(2019) KAR L.J. 819 (SC)]. 7. During the course of the hearing, Mr.Balaraj has also referred to the fact that, there is an amendment to Section 5 of the PTCL Act, whereby sub-Section (c) and (d) have been - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:5783-DB WA No. 905 of 2023 added to Section 5, inter alia, stating that the limitation would not be applicable. 8. It may be stated here that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.A.No.210/2023 has given a detailed opinion on an identical issue, whereby the appeal was dismissed. 9. For the sake of benefit, we reproduce the relevant paragraphs as under: 4.6 However, the aspects which emerged in light of the law laid down in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra), vis-à-vis the amendment in Section 5 and the situation obtained, came to be dealt with by the coordinate bench of this Court at Dharwad in Smt. Gouramma alias Gangamma vs. Deputy Commissioner, Haveri, which was Writ Appeal No.100101 of 2024 decided on 29th July 2024. 4.6.1 After noticing the amendment in Section 5, the division bench observed thus, in para 3(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 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 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:5783-DB WA No. 905 of 2023 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." (emphasis supplied) 4.6.2 It was observed that in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra), did not speak of limitation period, but focused on the long lapse of time in making the application for restitution of the land, by quoting paragraph 8 above from the said decision, the division bench then held as per para 3(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 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:5783-DB WA No. 905 of 2023 host of factors. Cases are repleat 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." 4.7 From the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. N. Murugesan [(2022) 2 SCC 25], the division bench highlighted the nice distinction between ‘delay and latches’, as against ‘limitation’. It was observed that the ‘limitation’ is a prescription of time for taking an action as contemplated by the legislature, whereas the concept of ‘delay and latches’ has a different connotation to operate. 4.8 The coordinate bench of this Court in Smt. Gouramma (supra), proceeded on the above reasoning to clarify that the issues were examined without touching the aspects of validity of amendment which is pending adjudication. It was held in Smt. Gouramma (supra) that on the ground of latches, the court would be justified in denying the relief of setting aside the transfer and restoring the land to the applicant when he has approached the court after unreasonable delay and his approaching the court is marred by latches. 5. The Supreme Court in N. Murugesan (supra), explained the word ‘laches’ thus, "The word "laches" is derived from the French language meaning “remissness and slackness". It thus involves unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a claim involving an equitable relief while causing prejudice to the other party. It is neglect on the part of a party to do - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:5783-DB WA No. 905 of 2023 an act which law requires while asserting a right, and therefore, must stand in the way of the party getting relief or remedy." (para 21) 5.1 The Supreme Court proceeded to observe that the remedy for which the party knocks the doors of the Court may not be provided to him on equitable grounds when such party is guilty of indolence and his action suffers from latches, "Two essential factors to be seen are the length of the delay and the nature of acts done during the interval. As stated, it would also involve acquiescence on the part of the party approaching the court apart from the change in position in the interregnum. Therefore, it would be unjustifiable for a Court of Equity to confer a remedy on a party who knocks its doors when his acts would indicate a waiver of such a right. By his conduct, he has put the other party in a particular position, and therefore, it would be unreasonable to facilitate a challenge before the court. Thus, a man responsible for his conduct on equity is not expected to be allowed to avail a remedy." (Para 22) 5.2 Though the principles governing overlap, the delay and latches has the facet in equity. Delay is the genus to which the latches and acquiescence are species. The jurisprudential concepts of delay, latches and acquiescence have their own colour and connotation and conceptually often different from - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:5783-DB WA No. 905 of 2023 crossing the period of limitation prescribed in the statutory provision. Limitation binds the litigant in terms of initiating a legal action or filing any proceedings. Laches concedes an element of culpability in allowing time to pass by in commencing the action in law. 6. In light of the above discussion and the position of law that would emerge, in the facts of the case, the restoration of the land cannot be permitted after 12 years. The question of latches would come into play. 12 years having been passed, it would be highly unreasonable, unjust and inequitable, as well as against law to grant any relief to the original grantee-the petitioner-appellant, permitting restoration of the land and to treat the transfer of the land taken place long back to be null and void. 6.1 In view of the reasons and discussion as above, the judgment and award of the learned Single Judge does not book any error. 7. The appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory applications, as may be pending, would not survive and they stand accordingly disposed of. (emphasis supplied) 10. In view of the above, we do not see any merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:5783-DB WA No. 905 of 2023 11. Pending I.A.No.1/2023 does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments