SRI PAPANNA vs SRI. R FAYAZ
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61050-DB
WA No. 2230 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669772026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO.2230 OF 2026 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
S/O MUNISHAMAPPA
R/AT GUDNAHALLI VILLAGE,
DODDAKADATHUR, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
2. SMT. VENKATESHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
W/O LATE ERAPPA
R/AT GUDNAHALLI VILLAGE,
DODDAKADATHUR, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
3. SMT. RADHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
W/O LATE ERAPPA
R/AT GUDNAHALLI VILLAGE,
DODDAKADATHUR, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
4. SMT. SUGUNA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
D/O LATE ERAPPA
R/AT GUDNAHALLI VILLAGE,
DODDAKADATHUR, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61050-DB
WA No. 2230 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669772026
5. SRI. VIJAY KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O LATE ERAPPA
R/AT GUDNAHALLI VILLAGE,
DODDAKADATHUR, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
6. SMT. VANITHA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
D/O LATE ERAPPA
R/AT GUDNAHALLI VILLAGE,
DODDAKADATHUR, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
7. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
W/O LATE BADRAPPA
R/AT GUDNAHALLI VILLAGE,
DODDAKADATHUR, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
8. SRI. MANJUNATHA J.B.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O LATE BADRAPPA
R/AT GUDNAHALLI VILLAGE,
DODDAKADATHUR, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
9. SRI. MURALI G.B.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O LATE BADRAPPA,
R/AT GUDNAHALLI VILLAGE,
DODDAKADATHUR, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
10. SRI. MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O LATE BADRAPPA
R/AT GUDNAHALLI VILLAGE,
DODDAKADATHUR, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61050-DB
WA No. 2230 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669772026
11. SMT. SANGEETHA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
D/O LATE BADRAPPA
R/AT GUDNAHALLI VILLAGE,
DODDAKADATHUR, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
12. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
S/O LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA
R/AT GUDNAHALLI VILLAGE,
DODDAKADATHUR, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
13. SRI. VENKATESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA
R/AT GUDNAHALLI VILLAGE,
DODDAKADATHUR, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
14. SRI. LACHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA
R/AT GUDNAHALLI VILLAGE,
DODDAKADATHUR, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. URMILA PULLAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. R. FAYAZ
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O RASOOL SAB
TH ST
R/AT NO.57/3-6, 7 CROSS, 1 MAIN,
VIRAT NAGAR, BOMMANAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560068.
2. SMT. GULNAZ BEGUM
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
W/O R. FAYAZ
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61050-DB
WA No. 2230 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669772026
TH ST
R/AT NO.57/3-6, 7 CROSS, 1 MAIN,
VIRAT NAGAR, BOMMANAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560068.
3. SRI. MOHAMMAD ASIF
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
S/O R. FAYAZ
TH ST
R/AT NO.57/3-6, 7 CROSS, 1 MAIN,
VIRAT NAGAR, BOMMANAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560068.
4. SRI. VAZIR KHAN
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O HYDER KHAN
TH
R/AT NO.184, 5 CROSS,
NEAR GOWSHALAVARA MADARASA,
NGR LAYOUT, ROOPENA AGRAHARA,
BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU -560068.
5. SMT. PARVEEN TAJ
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
W/O VAZIR KHAN
TH
R/AT NO.184, 5 CROSS,
NEAR GOWSHALAVARA MADARASA,
NGR LAYOUT, ROOPENA AGRAHARA,
BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU -560068.
6. SRI. FAIROZ KHAN
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O VAZIR KHAN
TH
R/AT NO.184, 5 CROSS,
NEAR GOWSHALAVARA MADARASA,
NGR LAYOUT, ROOPENA AGRAHARA,
BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU -560068.
7. SRI. JAVEED PASHA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O CHAND PASHA
TH
R/AT NO.411, 4 FLOOR,
VANDANA SAI NIVAS, AREKERE,
SAI BABA TEMPLE BACKSIDE,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560076.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61050-DB
WA No. 2230 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669772026
8. SMT. NOUFEENA .H.K
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
W/O JAVEED PASHA
TH
R/AT NO.411, 4 FLOOR,
VANDANA SAI NIVAS, AREKERE,
SAI BABA TEMPLE BACKSIDE,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560076.
9. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLAR SUB-DIVISION,
KOLAR - 563101.
10. SRI. V. RANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
S/O LATE VELLAPPA
R/AT DODDAKADATHUR VILLAGE,
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
11. SMT. CHANDRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
W/O V. RANGASWAMY
R/AT DODDAKADATHUR VILLAGE,
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
12. SMT. GOWRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
D/O LATE VELLAPPA
R/AT DODDAKADATHUR VILLAGE,
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
13. SRI. K.V. NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
S/O LATE K.V. VELLAPPA
R/AT DODDAKADATHUR VILLAGE,
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61050-DB
WA No. 2230 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669772026
14. SMT. VARALAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
W/O K.V. NARAYANASWAMY
R/AT DODDAKADATHUR VILLAGE,
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
15. SRI. K.V. BAPUJI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O LATE K.V. VELLAPPA
R/AT DODDAKADATHUR VILLAGE,
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
16. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
W/O K.V. BAPUJI
R/AT DODDAKADATHUR VILLAGE,
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
17. SRI. JEEVAN .K.B
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
S/O K.V. BAPUJI
R/AT DODDAKADATHUR VILLAGE,
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
18. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
D/O LATE K.V. VELLAPPA
R/AT DODDAKADATHUR VILLAGE,
MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563130.
19. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVAN,
TAMAKA, KOLAR - 563103.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN DANAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-8;
MS. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-19)
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61050-DB
WA No. 2230 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669772026
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2026
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.21063/2026
(SC-ST); DISMISS W.P.NO.21063/2026 AND RESTORE THE ORDER
DATED 25.03.2026 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN
CASE NO.PTCL/27/2024 AND THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2026
PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN APPEAL
NO.PTCL/52/2026 (ANNEXURE-B & A @ PAGE NOS.86-92 AND 103-
106 RESPECTIVELY) AND 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 MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA)
1. This intra-court appeal is preferred by the appellants, who
are respondent Nos.2 to 15 in W.P.No.21063/2026 (SC-ST)
assailing the order dated 07.08.2026 [ the impugned order ]
passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition
preferred by respondent Nos.1 to 8 herein was allowed, setting
aside the order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the Assistant
Commissioner, Kolar Sub-division, Kolar, in case
No.PTCL/127/2024 and the order dated 07.07.2026 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, Kolar, in case
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61050-DB
WA No. 2230 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669772026
No.PTCL/52/2026 and consequently dismissing the application
filed by the appellants under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain
Lands) Act, 1978 [ the Act ].
Brief facts
2. Land measuring 2 acres in old Sy.No.23, presently bearing
Nos.100/1, 100/2 and 100/3, situated at Gudnahalli Village, Kasaba
Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District [ the schedule property ] was
granted free of costs to one Sri Lachhiga, belonging to the Adi-
Karnataka Scheduled Caste community, by an order dated
30.11.1941, subject to a permanent non-alienation condition. The
appellants claim to be the legal representatives of the original
grantee.
3. It is the case of the appellants that, notwithstanding the
permanent non-alienation condition, the original grantee alienated
the scheduled property in favour of one Sri Lakshmanaiah under a
registered sale deed dated 10.06.1946. Subsequently,
Sri Lakshmanaiah, reconveyed the entire property to the original
grantee under a registered sale deed dated 28.02.1947.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61050-DB
WA No. 2230 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669772026
Thereafter, the original grantee once again alienated the property
in favour of one Sri Venkatappa, S/o Muniyappa, under a
registered sale deed dated 16.05.1949. Respondent Nos.1 to 8
herein traces their title through the said transaction.
4. Subsequently, a registered partition deed dated 05.07.2004,
was executed among the family members of Sri Venkatappa and
the said schedule property came to be reflected in the revenue
records as Sy.Nos.100/1, 100/2 and 100/3. Under three registered
sale deeds dated 07.03.2022, the respective portions were
conveyed in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein. Thereafter,
respondent Nos.3 and 6 conveyed Sy.No.100/3 in favour of
respondent Nos.7 and 8 under a registered sale deed dated
17.10.2023.
5. The appellants, claiming the original alienation was in
contravention of the permanent non-alienation condition attached
to the grant, instituted proceedings under Section 5 of the Act
before the Assistant Commissioner, seeking resumption and
restoration of the schedule property. The Assistant Commissioner,
by the order dated 25.03.2026, allowed the application, declared
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61050-DB
WA No. 2230 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669772026
the alienation to be in violation of the grant condition and directed
resumption and restoration of the property in favour of the
appellants.
6. Aggrieved thereby, respondent Nos.1 to 8 preferred an
appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, which came to be
dismissed by the order dated 07.07.2026, confirming the order
passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
7. The said orders were challenged by respondent Nos.1 to 8
before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.21063/2026.
Impugned order
8. The learned Single Judge noticed that the land was granted
in the year 1941 subject to permanent non-alienation condition and
that the first alienation had taken place in the year 1946 much prior
to the commencement of the Act on 01.01.1979. The learned
Single Judge by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Manchegowda and Others v. State of Karnataka and
1
Others , observed that where a purchaser has perfected title by
1
(1984) 3 SCC 301
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61050-DB
WA No. 2230 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669772026
prescription before commencement of the Act, such title could not
be defeated by invoking Section 4(1) of the Act.
9. The learned Single Judge further observed that the grant
was not one in which the State had reserved any right over the
property, but was an absolute right in favour of the original grantee,
subject only to a permanent non-alienation condition. In those
circumstances, the learned Single Judge concluded that the
purchasers had perfected their title by prescription. The learned
Single Judge also noticed that the application seeking restoration
was filed for the first time in the year 2024, nearly 45 years after the
Act came into force and that no satisfactory explanation was
offered for such an inordinate delay. Accordingly, the learned
Single Judge allowed the writ petition, set aside the concurrent
orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner and dismissed the application filed by the appellants
under Section 5 of the Act.
Reasons and conclusion
10. The undisputed facts are that the schedule property was
granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1941, subject to
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61050-DB
WA No. 2230 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669772026
a permanent non-alienation condition. The schedule property was
initially alienated in the year 1946, but was subsequently
reconveyed to the original grantee under the registered sale deed
dated 28.02.1947. Thereafter, the original grantee once again
alienated the schedule property under the registered sale deed
dated 16.05.1949. The subsequent purchaser traces their title
through the later transaction. The Act came into force on
01.01.1979. The original grantee had alienated the schedule
property under the registered sale deed dated 16.05.1949,
whereas the proceedings seeking resumption and restoration
under Section 5 of the Act were initiated only in the year 2024, after
an inordinate delay of approximately 75 years from the date of
alienation and 45 years from the date of the Act came into force
i.e., on 01.01.1979.
11. The principal contention urged on behalf of the appellants is
that the learned Single Judge could not have recorded a finding
regarding perfection of title by prescription in the absence of
specific pleadings and evidence before the statutory authorities. It
is relevant to notice that the learned Single Judge has placed
reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61050-DB
WA No. 2230 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669772026
Manchegowda ( supra ), wherein, while upholding the constitutional
validity of the Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognized that a
transferee acquiring granted land in contravention of the conditions
of grant acquires only a defeasible title, however, an exception was
recognized when transferee had perfected title by prescription or
otherwise before commencement of the Act.
12. In the present case, the reconveyance of the schedule
property to the original grantee in the year 1947 and its subsequent
alienation in the year 1949 are not in dispute. Even assuming that
the contention of the appellants regarding the absence of pleadings
and evidence relating to the perfecting title by prescription
deserves consideration, the impugned order is required to be
examined on the independent ground of inordinate delay in
initiating proceedings under Section 5 of the Act.
13. The question whether proceedings seeking resumption and
restoration of granted land can be initiated after an inordinate delay
is no longer a res integra . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nekkanti
2
Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another and Vivek
2
(2020) 14 SCC 232
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61050-DB
WA No. 2230 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669772026
3
M. Hinduja v. M. Aswatha , has held that even where no period of
limitation is prescribed under the statute, the power of resumption
and restoration is required to be invoked within a reasonable time.
14. It is relevant to notice that Section 5(1) of the Act was
subsequently amended by Act No.30/2023 inserting clauses (c)
and (d) providing that there shall be no limitation of time for
invoking the provisions of the Act and extending the amendment to
pending proceedings. The effect of the said amendment was
considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Smt.Gouramma @ Gangamma v. The Deputy Commissioner
4
and Others , wherein the distinction between the statutory
limitation and the equitable principles of delay and laches was
considered. The Co-ordinate Bench held that the amendment does
not exclude the application of the principles of delay and laches.
The Special Leave Petition preferred against the said decision was
dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [SLP(C) Diary
No.19020/2025].
3
(2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 SC
4
2024:KHC:D:10666-DB
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61050-DB
WA No. 2230 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669772026
15. Similarly, another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after
considering the amendment of Section 5 of the Act as well as the
decision in Smt.Gouramma @ Gangamma ( s upra ) reiterated the
legal position and recorded its conclusion in Smt. M. Manjula and
5
Others v. The Deputy Commissioner and Others . The
challenge to that judgment before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also
came to be dismissed [Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No(s).8421/2025].
16. Thus, the contention of the appellants that the amendment
introduced by Act No.30/2023 completely excludes consideration of
delay and laches cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down
in Smt.Gouramma @ Gangamma ( supra ) and Smt. M. Manjula
( supra ). The appellants cannot justify the reopening of transaction
after several decades, particularly where rights have accrued to
subsequent purchasers in the intervening period.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhedi Lal v.
6
Hari Kishore Yadav has held that where no period of limitation is
5
2024: KHC: 51015-DB
6
(2018) 12 SCC 527
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61050-DB
WA No. 2230 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669772026
prescribed, the action must be taken, whether suo moto or on
application of the parties within a reasonable time.
18. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Bhadre Gowda and Others v. The Deputy
7
Commissioner, Mysore District, Mysore and Others , it is
apposite to refer paragraph No.6 of the said decision, which is set
out below:
"6. Despite our aforesaid conclusion, it is imperative for us
not to leave the matter without examining the further
consequences which are liable to flow after the grantee
succeeds in getting the sale made by him, set aside. It is
essential for us to travel a little further and determine the
matters arising out of violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act,
wherein, the original grantee repeatedly sells the grant land,
and then seeks annulment of the sale. These are cases
where the vendor successfully reaps the benefit of his own
wrong. This case, like others dealt with by us, reveals the
misuse of a legislative enactment for personal gains. In the
first instance, the original grantee Cheluvaiah sold the grant
land on 01.10.1962. Having succeeded in getting the
aforesaid sale declared as void, the grant land came to be
restored back to him. Fully aware of the fact that he could not
have sold the grant land, he sold it yet again to Somegowda
on 03.02.1992. Cheluvaiah again succeeded in getting the
second sale made by him set aside, so as to retrieve the
land. The question that we wish to determine is, whether
having got the sale revoked, the original grantee is entitled to
retain the consideration amount received by him?. We are
satisfied, that repeated sales at the hands of the original
grantee constitutes the offence of cheating under the Section
7
2011 SCC OnLine Kar 4230
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61050-DB
WA No. 2230 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669772026
420 of the Penal Code, 1860. A person who cheats, is
definitely not entitled to seek restoration of the grant land and
retain the consideration received by him by sale thereof. It is
therefore, that we desire to hereby grant liberty to the
appellants to recover the sale consideration paid by
Somegowda to Cheluvaiah on 03.02.1992 as the grant land
has been restored to Cheluvaiah (now his legal heirs). The
other alternative, as we have concluded hereinabove, is not
available to the appellants in view of the Section 4 of the
PTCL Act. Cheluvaiah (his legal heirs as is the position in
this case) are certainly not entitled to retain the consideration
received by them, based on a sale in violation of Section 4 of
the PTCL Act. Thus, it shall be open to the appellants herein
to seek the refund of the sale consideration along with
interest thereon, if they are so advised, by proceeding
against the respondents through a civil litigation, if the
amount is unilaterally not refunded."
19. This Court considered that repeated alienation of granted
land by the original grantee, even after obtaining resumption and
restoration of the property under the Act. This Court deprecated the
conduct of the parties in repeatedly alienating the granted land and
thereafter invoking the provisions of the Act to seek restoration.
This Court observed that "these are cases where vendor
successfully reaps the benefit of his own wrong" and " reveals the
misuse of a legislative enactment for personal gains" .
20. Coming to the facts of the present case, the original grantee
had alienated the schedule property in the year 1946, subsequently
was reconveyed to the original grantee under the registered sale
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61050-DB
WA No. 2230 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669772026
deed dated 28.02.1947. Thereafter, the original grantee has
alienated the schedule property under a registered sale deed dated
16.05.1949. After the alienation, the appellants claiming through
the original grantee initiated proceedings under Section 5 of the Act
only in the year 2024 after an inordinate delay of approximately 75
years from the date of alienation. The Assistant Commissioner and
the Deputy Commissioner while directing resumption and
restoration of the schedule property have not adequately
considered the effect of such inordinate delay.
21. The contention of the appellants that the learned Single
Judge could not have travelled beyond the pleadings to record a
finding regarding perfection of title by prescription, does not, by
itself furnish a ground for interference with the ultimate conclusion
reached in the impugned order. The order passed by the learned
Single Judge can be sustained on the independent ground of
inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating proceedings under
Section 5 of the Act.
22. We are of the considered view that the conclusion reached
by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference. For
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61050-DB
WA No. 2230 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010669772026
the foregoing reason, the writ appeal is dismissed. The order
passed by the learned Single Judge dated 07.08.2026 in
W.P.No.21063/2026 [SC-ST] is affirmed.
23. Pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K.S. HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
AT
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16