- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34056 WP No. 20374 of 2026 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. 20374 OF 2026 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MANIKAMMA W/O LATE KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. SRI. NAGARAJU S/O LATE KALAIAH AGED 38 YEARS 3. SUBRAHMANYA S/O LATE KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT HOSAMALA VILLAGE ANTHARASANTHE HOBLI H.D.KOTE TALUK-571 114 MYSURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. H.MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU-570 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HUNSUR SUB-DIVISION HUNSUR-571 105. Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34056 WP No. 20374 of 2026 H.C.BASAVE GOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY LRs. 3. SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O LATE BASAVE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS HOSAMALA VILLAGE ANTHARASANTHE HOBLI H.D.KOTE TALUK-571 114. 4. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O SANNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS HOSAHOLALU VILLAGE AND POST ANTHARASANTHE HOBLI H.D.KOTE TALUK-571 114. 5. SMT. YASHODHA D/O LATE BASAVE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS HOSAMALA VILLAGE ANTHARASANTHE HOBLI H.D.KOTE TALUK-571 114. 6. SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O MUTHE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS HOSAMALA VILLAGE ANTHARASANTHE HOBLI H.D.KOTE TALUK-571 114. 7. SMT. SHEELAVATHI D/O LATE BASAVE GOWDA W/O NINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS SHIRANAHUNDI VILLAGE ANTHARASANTHE HOBLI H.D.KOTE TALUK-571 114. 8. SMT. PADMA W/O BASAVE GOWDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34056 WP No. 20374 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS HAIRIGE VILLAGE AND POST H.D.KOTE TALUK-571 125. 9. SMT. SHAKUNTHALA W/O RAMADAS AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS GOPALAPURA VILLAGE JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-570 008. 10. SRI. VEDAMURTHY S/O LATE BASAVE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS HOSAMALA VILLAGE ANTHARASANTHE HOBLI H.D. KOTE TALUK-571 114. 11. SRI. VEERABHADRA S/O LATE BASAVE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS HOSAMALA VILLAGE ANTHARASANTHE HOBLI H.D.KOTE TALUK-571 114 MYSURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA N., AGA FOR R1 & R2; NOTICE TO OTHER RESPONDENTS IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04/02/2020 IN NO.PTCL 01/2019-20 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34056 WP No. 20374 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. The case of the petitioners is that they are the legal heirs of the original grantee and they belong to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. The land in question was granted in the year 1949. The sale took place in the year 1975 in violation of the grant Rules. Proceedings before respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner was initiated in the year 2001. The said proceedings have terminated against the interest of the petitioners on the ground that the grant was made under the Grow More Food scheme and it was not a Darkasth grant. The order of respondent no.2 has been upheld by respondent no.1. Aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent nos.2 and 1, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioners is that, even if the land was granted under Grow More Food scheme, as it was a free grant they are entitled to protection under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands] Act, 1978, (for short 'PTCL Act') - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34056 WP No. 20374 of 2026 and respondent nos.1 and 2 have committed an error in holding it otherwise. 3. Per contra, learned AGA submits that, under the provisions of PTCL Act, only a Darkasth grant is protected and not a grant made under the Grow More Food scheme and it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 4. Irrespective of whether a grant made under Grow More Food scheme is protected under the provisions of PTCL Act or not, it is seen that the alienation of the land took place in the year 1975. The Act came into force in the year 1979. The first challenge to the alienation took place in the year 2001. There has been an unreasonable delay in challenging the sale, which is not justified under the circumstances. The unreasonable delay as per the decision 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, becomes fatal to the case of the petitioners. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34056 WP No. 20374 of 2026 5. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4