- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34780 WP No. 22996 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 22996 OF 2022 (SCST) BETWEEN: SMT RAJAMMA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, W/O LATE VENKATSHAPPA, R/AT S AGRAHARA VILLAGE, SUGATOOR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK - 563 101, KOLAR DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MANIVANNAN G AND SRI M PRAKASH, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, MULBAGAL ROAD NH-75, KOLAR - 563 101. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB DIVISION, GANDHI NAGAR, KOLAR - 563101. 3. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O LATE CHINNAPPAIAH, R/AT DHANDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, VAKKALERI HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 101. 4. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O LATE CHINNAPPAIAH, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34780 WP No. 22996 of 2022 R/AT DHANDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, VAKKALERI HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 101. 5. YELLAMMA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, W/O LATE GOVINDAPPA, R/AT 209, MUNIGOWDA GARDEN, NEELASANDRA VIVEK NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560047. 6. G RADHA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, D/O LATE GOVINDAPPA, R/AT 209, MUNIGOWDA GARDEN, NEELASANDRA VIVEK NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560047. 7. OM PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT 209, MUNIGOWDA GARDEN, NEELASANDRA VIVEK NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560047. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT SHARADA H V, AGA FOR R1 AND R2, SRI P PRITHVI KIRAN SETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4, R5, R6 AND R7 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE R1 AND 2 AND QUASH THE ORDERS DTD 28.9.2022 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE R1 IN PTCL APPEAL NO.2 OF 2021 IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDERS OF THE R2 DTD 28.6.2018 AT ANNEXURE-B IN ND (KLR) /SC/ST-31 OF 2007-2008 ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED BY THE R4 DECLARING THE SALE DEED DTD 11.1.1993 REGISTERED IN DOCUMENT NO.2408 OF 1992-93 AS NULL AND VOID AND TO EVICT BY RESTORING THE PROPERTY TO THE LRs OF ORIGINAL GRANTEE AND FURTHER ORDER DTD 15.10.2020 AT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34780 WP No. 22996 of 2022 ANNEXURE-C THEREOF TO RECTIFY THE PROPERTY NO.72 AS RE/NEW SY.NO.103 WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.72, NEW SY.NO.103 MEASURING 3 ACRE 38 GUNTA OF DANDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, VAKKALERI HOBLIL, KOLAR TALUK AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE PETITION OF THE R4 FILED BEFORE THE R2 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER The land which is the subject matter of the writ petition was allotted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1977 on the ground that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe community. The same has been sold in the year 1993 after the completion of the non-alienation period, but without taking the necessary permission from the Government. It was challenged by respondent Nos.3 and 4, the legal representatives of the original grantee in the year 2007 by preferring an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('PTCL Act'). The same was allowed by second respondent-Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner who is the present owner of the property preferred an appeal before first respondent-Deputy Commissioner which came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34780 WP No. 22996 of 2022 same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Case of the petitioner is that there is an inordinate delay of 14 years and as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER1 as well as by this Court in the case of K. Suresh Mohan vs. State of Karnataka & others in W.P. Nos.3597/2018 the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the petition filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before respondent No.2 is liable to be dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 are absent. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate, though justifies the impugned orders, is not able to disprove the fact that the sale made in the year 1993 has been challenged belatedly in the year 2007 and there has been an unreasonable delay and the same is not explained and hence, the same is in contravention of the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court in NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI, Supra, and this Court in W.P. Nos.3597/2018. 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34780 WP No. 22996 of 2022 5. As the challenge to the sale is made beyond the reasonable time and the same is not properly explained, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The Petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 28.06.2018 bearing no.J¯ï.J£ïr(PÉ.J¯ï.Dgï)/J¸ï¹/J¸ïn-31/2007-08 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-B to the writ petition is hereby set aside. iii) The impugned order dated 28.09.2022 bearing no.¦.n.¹.J¯ï/02/2021 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition is hereby set aside. iv) The petition filed by Respondent No.4 before respondent No.2 stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42