- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34273 WP No. 982 of 2026 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. 982 OF 2026 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA W/O LATE DODDAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT HAROHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130. 2. SRI. KANTHARAJU D. S/O DODDAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT HAROHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130. 3. SRI. M.V.NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE VIRAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT HAROHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEW DC OFFICE KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563 101. Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34273 WP No. 982 of 2026 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER POLICE GROUND ROAD KOLAR SUB-DIVISION KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. 3. SMT. SAROJAMMA MAJOR S/O SRINIVAS R/AT NO.20/1 NEAR TARAHUNSE DAIRY BANGALORE NORTH-560 063. 4. SMT. KANTHAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT ARANIGATTE VILLAGE LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR-563 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHARADA H.V., AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI.RAVI R. AND SMT.SHRUTHI N., ADVs. FOR R3 [ABSENT] VIDE ORDER DATED 20.01.2026 NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22-12-2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN PTCL/16/2025 AND ORDER DATED 21-08-2024 IN CASE NO.LND SC ST 01/2019 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY (MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A AND A1) AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34273 WP No. 982 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. The property which is the subject matter of the writ petition was granted in favour of one Kakappa, who is said to be the father of respondent no.3 in the year 1976 on the ground that he belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. The land was alienated for the first time in the year 1991 after the lapse of non- alienation period. Presently, petitioners are said to be the owners of the property. The alienation done in the year 1991 was challenged by respondent no.3 before respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the PTCL Act') for the first time in the year 2019. The said application has been allowed and the land has been resumed and restored in favour of respondent no.3. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred an appeal before respondent no.1-Deputy Commissioner, which - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34273 WP No. 982 of 2026 came to be rejected. As against the said orders passed by respondent nos.2 and 1, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioners is that, alienation took place after the non-alienation period was over and that obtaining permission from the Government was a mere formality and there were no reasons why Government would have otherwise refused permission. Even otherwise, it is submitted that the said alienation has been challenged after a lapse of 28 years which is unreasonable and hence, respondent nos.2 and 1 were not required to entertain the case of respondent no.3. However, respondent no.2 erred in allowing the application of respondent no.3 and respondent no.1 erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners. On the said ground, it is prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the application filed by respondent no.3 before respondent no.2 be dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 is absent. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34273 WP No. 982 of 2026 4. Learned AGA who justifies the impugned orders is unable to dispute the fact that the alienation has been challenged after a lapse of 28 years and the same is unreasonable. 5. Under the circumstances, the inordinate delay in challenging the sale made in the year 1991 becomes fatal to the case of respondent no.3 as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 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. 6. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 21.08.2024 bearing No.J¯ïJ£ïr J¸ï¹ J¸ïn 01/2019 passed by respondent no.2 (vide Annexure-A1 to the writ petition) is hereby set aside; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34273 WP No. 982 of 2026 (ii) The impugned order dated 22.12.2025 bearing No.PTCL/16/2025 passed by respondent no.1 (vide Annexure-A to the writ petition) is hereby set aside; (iii) The application filed by respondent no.3 before respondent no.2 under Section 5 of the PTCL Act is hereby dismissed; (iv) The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33