Inordinate delay and laches in filing an application for restoration of land under the PTCL Act can be grounds for rejection, as the absence of a statutory limitation period does not override the equitable principle of laches.

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 IN WRIT PETITION NO.11467/2020 DATED 11/12/2020 & ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 11.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.11467/2020 (SC-ST).

2. The appellant has filed an application seeking condonation of a delay of 1261 days in filing the present appeal, supported by an affidavit. The only explanation provided by the appellant for the inordinate delay of almost four years is that the advocate engaged by him had not informed him regarding the dismissal of the petition. The appellant also states that in the year 2022-2023, his mother, who was aged about 83 years, had fractured her leg and the appellant had taken her to an Ayurvedic doctor in Tamil Nadu, where she was treated. It is stated that he was regularly taking her for such treatment. Additionally, he states that his father was hospitalised in the year 2024 and subsequently, expired in the month of November 2024. The appellant states that he was upset and could not concentrate on any work thereafter. However, he contacted his advocate in the month of July 2025 and was informed regarding dismissal of his petition. The present appeal was filed on 11.09.2025.

3. In our view, the appellant's explanation does not provide sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated period.

4. We are unable to accept the explanation that the advocate for the appellant did not inform the appellant regarding dismissal of the petition. Plainly, the appellant was also required to keep himself informed of the progress of his case. It is difficult to accept that the appellant can absolve himself of his inaction for almost four years to find out the fate of his petition.

5. We, accordingly, reject the appellant’s application for condonation of delay. In view of the above, it is not necessary to examine the merits of the case. However, we have examined the merits as well, and find no merit in the appeal.

6. The dispute relates to land bearing Sy. No. 48/P5 measuring 2 acres situated at Linganapura Village, Maralvadi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk (now Harohalli Taluk), Ramanagara District ['the subject land']. The subject land was granted to one Pangala Thimmaiah ['the original grantee'], the grandfather of the appellant, on 18.07.1960 and it is stated that this grant was made in respect of persons belonging to the depressed class (SC-ST). The Saguvali Chit was issued in the year 1960.

7. After the demise of the original grantee, his daughters, namely Rangamma and Venkatamma came into possession of the subject land. The legal heirs of the original grantee sold the subject land to one Puttegowda, the father of respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 herein, vide a registered sale deed dated 16.09.1994 .

8. The appellant, claiming to be the grandson of the original grantee, filed an application on 29.01.2007 before respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara Sub-Division under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Pr