- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34615 WP No. 30589 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 30589 OF 2024 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI ERAIAH S/O LATE GORAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, 2. SRI CHIKKANNA S/O LATE GORAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT THONACHANAHALLI, CHELURU HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572216. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, TUMAKURU-572101. Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34615 WP No. 30589 of 2024 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, TUMAKURU-572101. 4. SMT. SIBIRANGAMMA W/O LATE RANGASWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT. SATHENAHALLI, CHELURU HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572216. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SHARADA.H.V., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI.N.R.NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR R4-ABSENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2024, PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU, IN CASE NO.PTCL 49/2022, VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34615 WP No. 30589 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The land in question was granted in favour of the husband of respondent No.4 in the year 1982, as he belonged to the Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes Community. It was sold in the year 1993. The same has been challenged under the provisions of Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act'), by making an application before respondent No.3 in the year 2021. Respondent No.3 has allowed the said application and has ordered for resumption and restoration of the land in favour of respondent No.4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have challenged the same before respondent No.2 - the Deputy Commissioner. The said appeal has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioners is that, presently they are the owners of the property and the challenge to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34615 WP No. 30589 of 2024 the sale in the year 1993 has been made after an inordinate delay of 28 years and the said delay is unreasonable and there is no explanation provided for. 3. Respondent No.4, though represented by a learned counsel, he has remained absent. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate though justifies the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, is unable to counter the fact that there is a delay of 28 years in making the necessary application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act and the said delay is not explained satisfactorily by respondent No.4. 5. Under the said circumstances, based upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. 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 W.P.No.3597/2018, disposed of on 06.07.2026 on the ground of inordinate and unreasonable - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34615 WP No. 30589 of 2024 delay in challenging the sale, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is hereby allowed; (ii) The impugned order dated 04.11.2024 bearing No.PTCL-49/2022 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure - E to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (iii) The impugned order dated 14.11.2022 bearing No.PTCL:12/2021-22 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure - C to the writ petition is hereby set aside and the application filed by respondent No.4 before respondent No.3 stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20