SRI. KANTILAL S/O. SRI. DHARMACHANDJI RATHOD vs THE SECRETARY

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15843-DB
WA No. 100249 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020040692023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

RD
DATED THIS THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026



PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI


WRIT APPEAL NO.100249 OF 2023 (LR)

BETWEEN:




SRI. KANTILAL
S/O. SRI. DHARMACHANDJI RATHOD,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. KANDAK ROAD,
NEAR VRL OFFICE,
HAVERI-581110




…APPELLANT
(BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH AND
SRI.M.V.HIREMATH, ADVOCATES
FOR THE APPELLANT)


AND:

1. THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.



Digitally signed
by BHARATHI H
M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2026.11.04
11:21:55 +0530


2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
HAVERI SUB-DIVISION,
HAVERI-581110.

3. THE TAHASILDAR,
HAVERI TALUK,
HAVERI-581110.


4. THE REGISTRAR,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15843-DB
WA No. 100249 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020040692023


KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
M.S BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHARAD V.MAGADUM, AGA
FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO, SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2023 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE
COURT IN WP NO.147454/2020 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL; TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO RESTORE THE NAME OF
THE APPELLANT AS THE OWNER/OCCUPANT IN RESPECT OF LAND
BEARING SURVEY NO.295/F MEASURING 4 ACRES SITUATED AT
KARAJAGI VILLAGE, HAVERI TALUK AND DISTRICT AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15843-DB
WA No. 100249 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020040692023



ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI )


The captioned writ appeal is filed by the appellant assailing
the order dated 13.02.2023 passed in W.P.No.147454/2020,
whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the
parties will be referred to as per their respective rankings
before the writ Court.

3. The petitioner purchased agricultural land bearing
Survey No.295/F, measuring 4 acres, situated at Karajagi
village, Haveri Taluk and District, under a registered Sale Deed
dated 12.08.2010, after declaring that he belonged to an
agricultural family and that his annual income from non-
agricultural sources was not less than Rs.5,00,000/-. The
revenue entries were thereafter mutated in his name.

4. On verification under Section 81A of the Karnataka
1
Land Reforms Act, 1961 , respondent No.3-Tahsildar reported
that the petitioner did not belong to an agricultural family as

1
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘KLR Act’

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15843-DB
WA No. 100249 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020040692023


required under Section 79A of the KLR Act. Respondent No.2-
Assistant Commissioner thereupon initiated proceedings for
contravention of Sections 79A and 79B of the KLR Act and, by
order dated 26.12.2011, forfeited the land to the Government.
The petitioner alleges that the proceedings were conducted
without notice or enquiry under Sections 82 and 83 of the KLR
Act, and in disregard of the amendment enhancing the income
ceiling from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.25,00,000/- with retrospective
effect from 01.03.1974.

5. The petitioner challenged the said order on
18.12.2017 in Appeal No.1359/2017 under Section 118(2) of
the KLR Act before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal,
2
Bengaluru , along with an application under Section 5 of the
3
Limitation Act, 1963 , seeking condonation of a delay of 5
years, 11 months and 22 days. By order dated 12.03.2020, the
Tribunal rejected the application and dismissed the appeal as
time-barred. The writ petition filed against that order was
dismissed on 13.02.2023. Being aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner preferred the present appeal.

2
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’
3
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Limitation Act’

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15843-DB
WA No. 100249 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020040692023


SUBMISSIONS

6. Learned counsel Sri. V.S. Kalasurmath and
Sri. M.V. Hiremath appearing for the petitioner contend that:
(i) the order of the learned Single Judge is cryptic and
rests solely on delay, ignoring the material
establishing the petitioner's eligibility, namely, his
income statements for 2004-05 to 2010-11 and the
Jamabandi extracts of Survey No.368 of Kalandri
village, Shiroi Taluk, Gujarat;
(ii) the finding of the Tribunal that notice was served
on 05.11.2011 and that the petitioner appeared on
09.11.2011 is contrary to the record;
(iii) under Section 12(2) of the Karnataka Land
Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (Ordinance
No.13 of 2020), all cases under Sections 79A, 79B
and 79C pending on the date of its promulgation
stand abated, and the appeal, pending since
18.12.2017, therefore stood abated; and

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15843-DB
WA No. 100249 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020040692023


(iv) sufficient cause was shown, and the application
for condonation ought to have been decided on its
merits.
Per contra
7. , the learned Additional Government
Advocate Sri. Sharad V. Magadum appearing for respondents
No.1 to 4 supports the impugned order and seeks dismissal of
the appeal.
ANALYSIS

8. The point for consideration is whether the order of the
learned Single Judge calls for interference.

9. The order dated 26.12.2011 was challenged only on
18.12.2017, after a delay of 5 years, 11 months and 22 days.
The petitioner sought to explain the delay by pleading that he
was never served with notice, that he learnt of the order only
on 09.05.2017 through the Revenue Inspector, and that he was
thereafter bedridden with viral fever and chikungunya until
10.10.2017.

10. Neither plea withstands scrutiny. Not a single
document supports the claim of illness. The plea of non-service

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15843-DB
WA No. 100249 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020040692023


is belied by the records of the original authority, which show
that the notice was served on the petitioner on 05.11.2011
under an acknowledgment bearing his signature; that he
appeared on 09.11.2011 and sought time to produce
documents; and that he remained absent on 23.11.2011 and
30.11.2011, whereafter the matter was posted for orders. The
certified copy of the impugned order was applied for and issued
on the same day, 09.05.2017. The Tribunal therefore rightly
held that the petitioner, despite knowledge of the proceedings,
had not pursued the matter for over five and a half years and
had failed to show sufficient cause.

11. The grievance that the merits were not considered is
equally untenable. In Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs
4
and Others v. Special Deputy Collector (LA) , the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, while refusing to condone a delay of 5659
days, laid down that:
“(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be
considered in condoning the delay; and
(viii) Delay condonation application has to be
decided on the parameters laid down for condoning
the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that

4
2024 INSC 286: [2024] 4 SCR 241

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15843-DB
WA No. 100249 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020040692023


the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to
disregarding the statutory provision”

To the same effect are Esha Bhattacharjee v.
5
Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy ,
and Basawaraj and Another v. Special Land Acquisition
6
Officer , which hold that "sufficient cause" must be established
on its own terms, and that the liberal approach does not extend
to a party guilty of negligence, inaction or want of bona fides. A
strong case on merits is no answer to such negligence. Once
sufficient cause was not shown, neither the Tribunal nor the
learned Single Judge was required to examine the petitioner's
eligibility under Section 79A or the effect of the amendment to
the income ceiling.

12. The law assists the vigilant, not those who sleep over
their rights - vigilantibus non dormientibus jura
subveniunt . The petitioner, though aware of the proceedings
since 05.11.2011, remained inactive for nearly six years. The
Tribunal rightly declined to condone the delay, and the learned

5
(2013) 12 SCC 649
6
(2013) 14 SCC 81

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:15843-DB
WA No. 100249 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020040692023


Single Judge rightly declined to interfere. The point is
accordingly answered in the negative .

13. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER

a) The writ appeal is dismissed .

b) The order dated 13.02.2023 passed in
W.P.No.147454/2020 is hereby confirmed.
Consequently, the order dated 12.03.2020
passed in Appeal No.1359/2017 by the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, is
also confirmed.

c) Pending interlocutory applications, if any,
stand disposed as not calling for
adjudication.

d) No order as to cost.

Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE

PMP
CT:VH/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7