IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 147 OF 2024 (SC-ST)

BETWEEN:

SRI. N V SHANKAR S/O LATE VARABADHRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT: NEETIMANGALA VILLAGE, SHEELANERE HOBLI, K.R. PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUNIL S RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 401.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION, PANDAVAPURA – 571 434.

3. SRI. RAMEGOWDA S/O MUDDALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT: NEETIMANGALA VILLAGE NEELANERE HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 435.

4. SRI. DEVEGOWDA S/O MUDDALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT: NEETIMANGALA VILLAGE NEELANERE HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 435.

5. SRI. NINGEGOWDA S/O MUDDALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEETIMANGALA VILLAGE NEELANERE HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 435.

6. SRI BORALINGEGOWDA S/O MUDDALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NETIMANGALA VILLAGE NEELANERE HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 435.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.07.2023 ONE PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P No. 5981/2022, FILED BY THE APPELLANT HEREIN AND CONSEQUENTLY PASS NECESSARY ORDERS TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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)

This appeal raises a challenge to the order of learned Single Judge dated 19.07.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.5981/2022, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein, by stating in paragraph No.4 onwards as under:-

“4. In the present case on hand, the original grantee during the lifetime has alienated the land in 1960 and has filed an application seeking restoration in the year 1979. The said application was rejected on 31.07.1981. The present petitioner herein has filed second application seeking restoration in the year

2016. This application was also rejected.

5. In the instant case, this Court would find that there is a delay of 56 years in filing the petition by the petitioner herein. While the original grantee suffered an order, he again moved an application after an inordinate delay of 19 years. 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. The restoration petition filed by the petitioner herein is liable to be rejected in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment cited supra. If original grantee has suffered an order and his application seeking restoration was rejected in the year 1981, the present petitioner, claiming to be the grandson could not have maintained the second application in the year 2016.

7. The second application seeking resumption is not maintainable as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Narayanaswamy vs. The District Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Others. The relevant paragraph of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench is as under:

"11. In view of the aforesaid undispute