IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.1474/2023 (SC-ST)

BETWEEN:

MR. N. NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/OF DURGIDEVI STREET VIJAYAPURA TOWN Digitally DEVANAHALLI TALUK signed by BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

RUPA V …APPELLANT Location :

High Court (BY SRI. GUBBI SWAMY S, ADV.,)

Of Karnataka AND:

1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU 562114.

2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA 561203.

3. SHRI. MUNIKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE APPAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.

4. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA W/O MUNIKRIGHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF BETTAHALLI VILLAGE SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562114 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI. B.G. NANJUNDARADHYA, ADV., FOR R3 & R4)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN W.P No.24062/2021 (SC-ST). SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2023, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.24062/2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION & ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 29.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24062/2021 (SC-ST).

2. Sri.Gubbi Swamy S., learned counsel appearing for the appellant 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 either before the Assistant Commissioner or before the Deputy Commissioner. It is further submitted that the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is a 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 validity of the amendment brought to the Act is under consideration before the learned Single Judge. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

3. Per contra, Sri.B.G.Nanjundaradhya, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 supports the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the Division Bench of this Court has considered all the aspects and held that if there is any unreasonable delay in filing an application for restoration, the same is liable to be rejected. The learned Single Judge considered all the aspects including the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and dismissed the writ petition which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides.

5. The material on record indicates that the legal heirs of the original grantee initiated proceedings under Section 5 of the Act. The records further indicate that the land was originally granted to Dabba Chinnappa on 30.11.1959 and saguvali chit came to be issued on 02.06.1961. The grantee alienated the property in question on 21.03.1967 and thereafter, number of transfers have taken place between the parties to the proceedings. The legal heirs of the original grantee initiated proceedings under Section 5 of the Act