SRI A K SHIVAMURTHY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BENGALURU 560 001. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE 577 001.

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka …APPELLANTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB WA No. 957 of 2022 HC-KAR

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB DIVISION DAVANAGERE 577 001. THE TAHASILDAR CHANNAGERE TALUK CHANNAGERE DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577 001. SRI SHIVALINGAPPA S/O NINGAPPA AGED MAJOR SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O DASHARATHAPPAA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS SRI D BASAVARAJAPPA S/O DASHARATHAPPAA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 7(a) SMT. UMA W/O LATE D BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 7(b) SMT. SAHANA D/O LATE D BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 7(c) SAGAR S/O LATE D BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS 7(d) NAGARAJ S/O LATE D BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS

SRI D MANJAPPA S/O DASHARATHAPPAA AGE MAJOR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB WA No. 957 of 2022 HC-KAR

SMT. VANI W/O B G JAGANNATH AGE MAJOR ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF DAGINAKATTE VILLAGE CHANNAGERE TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001. (BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1-R4; SRI A NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R9; R6, R7(A TO D) & R8 ARE SERVED) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE ORDER DATED 13TH SEPTEMBER 2022 IN WP No.1617/2020 (SC/ST) AND ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.1617/2020 (SC-ST). - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB WA No. 957 of 2022 HC-KAR

2. Sri. Sagar B.B, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the writ petition without appreciating the material available on record in its proper perspective. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to take note of the fact that there was no opportunity to explain the delay before the Assistant Commissioner or before the Deputy Commissioner. It is further submitted that the provisions of the Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act') is welfare legislation with a specific object to protect the interests of the grantee and there is no limitation provided under the Act to file an application for restoration and resumption. It is also submitted that the issue with regard to the validity to the amendment brought to the Act is under consideration before the learned Single Judge. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB WA No. 957 of 2022 HC-KAR

Per contra, Sri.A.Nagarajappa, learned counsel for respondent No.9 supports the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the Division Bench of this Court has considered all the aspects and affirmed the interference by the authority and the learned Single Judge, if the delay in filing the application for restoration is beyond a reasonable period. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for respondent No.9 and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides.

The material on record indicates that the grandfather of the appellants i.e., Sri. Durgappa was granted land in Sy.No.139 (old No.79/3) measuring 5 acres situated at Daginakatte Village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District vide order dated 20.05.1950. The - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB WA No. 957 of 2022 HC-KAR grantee sold the subject favour of one Sri. Shivalingappa vide registered sale deed dated

22.08.1957. Later, the said property was sold in favour of Sri. Dasharathappa by the registered sale deed dated

12.04.1997. Thereafter, respondent No.7- Sri.D.Basavarajappa purchased the same on 04.07.2011. Admittedly, the legal heirs of the grantee filed an application under Section 5 of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner seeking for resumption and restoration of the land. The said application came to be rejected which was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. The initiation of proceedings under Section 5 of the Act is in the year 2011 and considering the sale is of the year 1957, the initiation of proceedings would me more than 54 years from the first sale and 32 years from the date of commencement of the Act. The learned Single Judge considering the law on point affirmed the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:44263-DB WA No. 957 of 2022 HC-KAR We do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge.

In view of the same, it would be useful to refer to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and Another1, Vivek M.Hinduja Vs. M.Aswatha2, Chhedi Lal Yadav Vs. Hari Kishore Yadav3 and Ningappa Vs. Deputy Commissioner and Others4 wherein it was held that the application for resumption or restoration cannot be entertained beyond a reasonable period. The Co-ordinate Bench case of Sri. Keshavamurthy and Another v. Special Deputy Commissioner and Others5 considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra as well as the decision in the case of Smt. Gouramma @ Gangamma v.