- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34195 WP No. 49711 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.49711 OF 2016 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. CHANNAMMA W/O LATE DEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, 2. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE DEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 3. PUTTASWAMY S/O LATE DEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 4. JAVAREGOWDA S/O LATE DEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 5. DEVEGOWDA S/O LATE DEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 6. LOKESH S/O LATE DEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, SL.NO.1 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT DONABAGATTA ROAD KADAKATTE, OLD KAVALAGUNDI Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34195 WP No. 49711 of 2016 BHADRAVATHI (CMC) SHIVAMOGGA DISTRCIT-577 301. 7. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O MAYANNA D/O LATE DEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O. BEHIND VISVASA DABA HOUSE B.H. ROAD NEAR BILKI CROSS BHADRAVATHI-577 301. 8. SMT. DEVAMMA W/O. RAMEGOWDA D/O. LATE DEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O. HOMBALE KOPPALU VILLAGE DEVLAPURA HOBLI NAGAMANGLA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432. 9. SMT. CHIKKAMMA W/O. NAGARAJA D/O LATE DEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O. KAVALGONDI VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI-577 301. 10. SMT. PARVATHI W/O BOREGOWDA D/O LATE DEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O. III MAIN ROAD DATHATHREYA NAGARA HOSKEREHALLI, BSK III STAGE BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE - 560 085. 11. SMT. BHAGYA D. W/O UMESH D/O LATE DEVAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34195 WP No. 49711 of 2016 AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O. 7TH CROSS, DOOR NO.15/4 HOSAKEREHALLI VILLAGE BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE- 560 085. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI VARADARAJ R. HAVALDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ESHWARA S/O LATE NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 28 YEARSr 2. RANGASWAMY S/O LATE NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF HEBBANDI HOBLI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577 301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA N., AGA., FOR R.3 AND R.4; R.1 AND R.2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34195 WP No. 49711 of 2016 AFORESAID ORDER NO.SC/ST 16/2012-2013 DATED 30.08.2016 AND PTCL CR.13/2010-11, I BEING ANNEXURE-H AND G OF THE RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS THROUGH-OUT; ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. The land which is the subject matter of the writ petition, was granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1957. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the legal heirs of the original grantee. The land was sold in favour of the ancestor of the petitioners in the year 1964. In the year 2010, after a lapse of about 46 years, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short "the PTCL Act") before respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 has allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners before respondent No.4, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34195 WP No. 49711 of 2016 which came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 though served have remained absent. 3. Though learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 justifies the impugned orders, she admits the aforementioned facts in paragraph No.1 supra to be true. 4. Admittedly, there is a delay of about 46 years in challenging the sale executed in favour of the ancestor of the petitioners. The delay is unexplained. It is not the case of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the sale made in favour of the ancestor of the petitioners was not for valid sale consideration. Hence, relying upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 as well as the decision of this Court in R.Suresh Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34195 WP No. 49711 of 2016 W.P.No.3597/2018, disposed of on 06.07.2026, wherein the sale is required to be challenged within a reasonable period, the writ petition requires to be allowed. Hence the following:- ORDER i. The writ petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 10.02.2012 bearing No. No.¦n¹J¯ï ¹Dgï 13/2010-11 passed by respondent No.3 (vide Annexure-'G' to the writ petition) is hereby set aside. iii. The impugned order dated 30.08.2016 bearing No.SC/ST 16/2012-13 passed by respondent No.4 (vide Annexure-'H' to the writ petition) is hereby set aside. iv. The application filed before respondent No.3 by respondent Nos.1 and 2 is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39