- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35802 WP No. 12448 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 12448 OF 2022 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE H.VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS THONDALA VILLAGE HOLUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.VIJAYA KUMAR AND SRI. NAGARAJA N., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS REVENUE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563 101. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35802 WP No. 12448 of 2022 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION KOLAR-563 101. 4. SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT THONDALA VILLAGE KOLAR TALUK/DISTRICT-563 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA N., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. V.VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH/SET SIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2019 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN R.A.SC-ST.7/2015-16 AND ORDER DATED 16.07.2015 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN CASE NO.LND.SC.ST.KLR. 06/2005-06 (ANNEXURES-A AND B) HOLDING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35802 WP No. 12448 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. Respondent no.4 is the legal heir of the original grantee. Petitioner is the legal representative of the purchaser. The land was granted in favour of original grantee in the year 1967. He belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. The land was sold in the year 1968. A challenge to the same was made by filing 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') in the year 2005. Respondent no.3 has allowed the said application and ordered for resumption and restoration of the land in favour of respondent no.4. Against the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent no.2. The same has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, there has been an unexplained inordinate delay of 37 years in preferring the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act since the sale was executed and based on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35802 WP No. 12448 of 2022 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 the case of R.Suresh Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.3597/2018, the application ought to have been rejected. However, the impugned orders are passed in favour of respondent no.4, which are erroneous. 3. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for respondent no.4 justify the impugned orders and pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Admittedly, there has been an inordinate delay of 37 years in challenging the sale, which is unexplained. As per the ratio laid down by 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 the case of R.Suresh Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.3597/2018, when there is an inordinate and unreasonable delay in challenging the sale, the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act cannot be sustained. 5. Hence, the following: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35802 WP No. 12448 of 2022 ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 16.07.2015 passed by respondent no.3 in No.LND.SC.ST KLR.06/2005-06 (vide Annexure-B to the writ petition) is hereby set aside; (ii) The impugned order dated 18.09.2019 passed by respondent no.2 in No.Dgï.J.J¸ï.¹.J¸ï.n.07/2015-16 (vide Annexure-A to the writ petition) is hereby set aside; (iii) The application filed by respondent no.4 before respondent no.3 under Section 5 of the PTCL Act stands dismissed; (iv) Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28