Karnataka High Court
Sri Narasimhaiah vs The Deputy Commissioner on 20 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1592 OF 2023 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
SRI. NARASIMHAIAH
S/O LATE MUNIMALLAPPA @ MUNIMALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT. ANNEGHATTA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110
...APPELLANT
(By SRI. SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU-562 110
2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION
DODDABALLAPURA
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203
3 . SMT. GAYATHRI PRASAD
W/O KRISHNA PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT. No.1151
11TH MAIN ROAD
-
2
R.P.C. LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 040
4 . M/S. M.S.K. HOLDINGS
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:2/16
11TH CROSS, WEST OF CHORD ROAD
2ND STAGE, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM
BENGALURU-560 086
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI. MALLIGA SAINATH
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. ABHISHEK PATIL, ADVOCATE &
SRI. CHANDAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4;
NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN RESPECT OF R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO (a). TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN W.P.No.13697/2022 AND (b). TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 07.06.2023 ONE PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.13697/2022, FILED BY THE APPELLANT
HEREIN AND CONSEQUENTLY PASS NECESSARY ORDERS TO
ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 12.06.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
-
3
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This appeal is filed against the order of the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.13697/2022 dated 07.06.2023.
2. We have heard Shri. Sunil S. Rao for Shri. T.
Sheshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, and Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 and
2, and Shri. Chandan, learned counsel and Shri. Abhishek
Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant that the writ petition filed by the petitioner
challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru Rural District, dated 12.11.2021 has been
dismissed on the short ground that his application under
Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978,
(‘PTCL Act‘ for short) was filed belatedly and therefore, it
–
4
need not be considered. It is submitted that the finding that
the appellant had slept over his rights for a period of twelve
years and that the cases covered by the judgments of the
Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of
Karnataka and Another1 and Vivek M. Hinduja Vs. M.
Aswatha2, is completely misconceived.
4. It is submitted that the PTCL Act is a piece of
beneficial legislation, which is intended to check exploitation
of the vulnerable backward classes and that an
interpretation which is beneficial to the original grantee, who
belong to a backward class is to be adopted by this Court.
5. It is further submitted that a transfer or an
alienation of a granted land, without prior permission of the
Government, is null and void. It is therefore contended that
Section 5 of the PTCL Act provides only the consequences of
nullity, which is declared under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act
and that the transaction being totally void, the sale deed
could not have resulted in passing of title and rejection of
1
(2020) 14 SCC 232
2
(2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC
–
5
application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act on the
ground that it is belated, was completely unwarranted.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed
reliance on several judgments of this Court as well as the
Apex Court in support of his contentions.
• A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and Another
reported in (1988) 2 SCC 602;
• U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran
Chandra Pandey and Others reported in
(2007) SCC 92;
• Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala
and Another reported in (2000) 6 SCC 359;
• State of Rajasthan and Others v. D.R Laxmi
and Others reported in (1996) 6 SCC 445;
• B.K. Muniraju v. State of Karnataka and
Others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 451;
• Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v.
Umadevi (3) and Others reported in (2006) 4
SCC 1;
• Mamleshwar Prasad and Another v.
Kanhaiya Lal (DEAD) Through Lrs reported in
(1975) 2 SCC 232;
–
6
• U.P. Jal Nigam and Others v. Prabhat
Chandra Jain and Others reported in (1996) 2
SCC 363;
• V. Kishan Rao v. Nikhil Super Speciality
Hospital and Another reported in (2010) 5
SCC 513;
• Union of India and Another v. Major
Bahadur Singh reported in (2006) 1 SCC 368;
• Guntaiah and Others v. Hambamma and
Others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 228;
• Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others
reported in (2008) 10 SCC 1;
• Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand and
Others reported in (2010) 10 SCC 693;
• Shanker Raju v. Union of India reported in
(2011) 2 SCC 132;
• U.P. State Brassware Corporation Limited
and Another v. Uday Narain Pandey reported
in (2006) 1 SCC 479;
• State of Uttar Pradesh and Another v.
Synthetics and Chemicals Limited and
Another reported in (1991) 4 SCC 139;
• Bhadrappa (Dead) By LRs v. Tolacha Naik
reported in (2008) 2 SCC 104;
–
7
• Union of India and Another v. Raghubir
Singh (Dead) by LRs. ETC reported in (1989)
2 SCC 754.
• Chinde Gowda v. Puttamma reported in
(2007) 12 SCC 618;
• Krishena Kumar v. Union of India and
Others reported in (1990) 4 SCC 207;
• Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and Others v.
Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and Others
reported in (2009) 9 SCC 352;
• K.T. Huchegowda v. Deputy Commissioner
and Others reported in (1994) 3 SCC 536;
• State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha and
Others reported in (1969) 2 SCC 187;
• Waman Rao and Others v. Union of India
and Others reported in (1981) 2 SCC 362;
• Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai
Khengarbhai Harijan and Others reported in
(2009) 16 SCC 517;
• T. Anjanappa and Others v. Somallingappa
and Another reported in (2006) 7 SCC 570;
• G. Krishnareddy v. Sajjappa (Dead) by LRs.
and Another reported in (2011) 13 SCC 226;
–
8
• Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai
Ibrahim reported in (1997) 6 SCC 71;
• Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Government of
India and Others reported in (2004) 10 SCC
779;
• Central Bureau of Investigation v. Keshub
Mahindra and Others reported in (2011) 6
SCC 216;
• Harishchandra Hegde v. State of Karnataka
and Others reported in (2004) 9 SCC 780;
• R. Chandevarappa and Others v. State of
Karnataka and Others reported in (1995) 6
SCC 309;
• Gaya Prasad Dikshit v. Dr. Nirmal Chander
and Another reported in (1984) 2 SCC 286;
• A.R. Antualy v. R.S. Nayak and Another
reported in (1988) 2 SCC 602;
• Thakur Kishan Singh (Dead) v. Arvind
Kumar reported in (1994) 6 SCC 591;
• G.M. Venkatareddy and ANR v. The Deputy
Commissioner, Kolar District and Others
reported in ILR (2012) KAR 3168;
• Asha John Divianathan v. Vikram Malhotra
and Others reported in (2021) 1 SCR 953.
–
9
7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3,
on the other hand, submits that the grant is of the year
1960 and the first sale made in the year 1996 is by the
appellant himself and his brother. An order of conversion
was granted on 12.08.1997 and further sales were effected
in the year 2007. It is only after lapse of 12 long years and
after the first sale took place in 1996, that the application
under Section 5 of the PTCL Act is filed by the petitioner
himself. It is submitted that petitioner’s brother who was
also a party to the first sale deed has not chosen to file any
application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act.
8. It is further contended that the Apex Court in
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (supra) has specifically
considered the question of delay and has held that the
remedy under Section 5 is available only if it is availed
within some reasonable time and a belated application under
Section 5 cannot be entertained. It is specifically held in
paragraph 8 of the said judgment as follows;
“8. However, the question that arises is with regard to
terms of Section 5 of the Act which enables any interested
–
10
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 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 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 31-12-1950. 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.”
–
11
9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3
has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Smt. M. Manjula & Ors. Vs. The
Deputy Commissioner & Ors3. This Court considered the
question of delay in making the application under Section 5
of PTCL Act and the judgments of the Apex Court, and has
specifically held that even when no period of limitation is
provided under the statute, the application has to be
preferred within a reasonable time, failing which, laches
could be presumed as against the applicant. The implication
of the amendment dated 27.07.2023, by which, sub clauses
(c) and (d) were inserted in Section 5 has also been
considered by the Bench in W.A.No.210/2023. After
considering all these aspects, it was held that an application
for restoration filed after 12 years of the initial alienation,
cannot be allowed and that it would be highly unreasonable,
unjust and inequitable, as well as against law to grant any
relief to the original grantee by permitting restoration of the
land after 12 years and it was specifically held as follows;
3
W.A. No.210/2023
–
12
“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 laches 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.”
10. Though exhaustive arguments have been raised
by the learned counsel for the appellant on the principles of
law, we are of the opinion that in facts of the instant case, it
stands squarely covered by the judgment of the Co-equal
Bench of this Court and we are in respectful agreement with
the views expressed therein.
11. The appellant himself was a party to the sale
deed dated 17.04.1996. The vendors were the appellant and
his brother. After 12 long years, the application under
Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been preferred by the
appellant alone. No tangible reason for the long delay of 12
years is available in this instant case. We are therefore of
the view that the application filed by the appellant was hit
–
13
by laches and the order of the learned Single Judge declining
interference in the order of the Deputy Commissioner was
therefore, completely just and proper. We find no good
grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned
Single Judge in this intra-Court appeal. The appeal fails and
same is accordingly, dismissed.
All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
PN