- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010333222022 NC: 2026:KHC:36375 WP No. 14825 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 14825 OF 2022 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. CHINNAMMA, W/O LATE BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 2. SMT. MEENAKSHI, D/O LATE BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 3. SRI. VENKATESH, S/O LATE BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 4. SRI. PAPANNA, S/O LATE BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O NEAR CHANNAKESHAVA SWAMY TEMPLE KELAGOTE, CHITHRADURGA - 577 501. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010333222022 NC: 2026:KHC:36375 WP No. 14825 of 2022 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA SUB - DIVISION, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 3. SMT BHOMAKKA, W/O LATE PAPPAIAH, 4. SRI. BORAIAH, S/O LATE PAPPAIAH, 5. SMT. BORAMMA, D/O LATE PAPPAIAH, W/O LOKANNA, 6. SMT. PAPPAMMA, W/O LATE BOMMALINGAIAH, D/O LATE PAPPAIAH, R/O BARAMSAGARA, CHALLAKERE TALUK - 577 522. 7. SRICHANNAKESHAVA, S/O LATE PAPPAIAH, 8. SMT. LAKASHAMMA, W/O SHIVAMURTHY, D/O LATE PAPPAIAH, 9. PAPPANNA, S/O LATE PAPPAIAH, ALL ARE MAJORS, RESPONDENTS (R-3 TO R-5) AND (R7 TO R-9) ARE RESIDENTS OF MYAKLARAHATTI @ PALENHATTI VILLAGE, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010333222022 NC: 2026:KHC:36375 WP No. 14825 of 2022 CHIKAMMANLLI POST, CHALLAKERE TALUK - 577 522, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.CHANDINI S., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.VINAY CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R9 (ABSENT)) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER NO.SCPTL/CLK/01/2013-14 DATED 16.2.2016 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 IN CASE NO.PTCL (A)5/2021 DATED 7.7.2022 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE - C AND ETC., 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 granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1960 and the grant certificate was issued in the year 1973. The original grantee was a person who belonged to a Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe community and he sold the land in the year 1984 to late - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010333222022 NC: 2026:KHC:36375 WP No. 14825 of 2022 Basavaraju without obtaining the necessary permission from the State as contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act'). The petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased Basavaraju. 2. The proceeding under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was initiated in the year 2013 before respondent No.2- Assistant Commissioner. The petitioners were placed exparte. An order was passed for resuming and restoring the land in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee in the year 2016. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they came to know about the order passed by the second respondent- Assistant Commissioner only in the year 2021 when they were sought to be evicted from the land concerned. Immediately thereafter, they have preferred an appeal before the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010333222022 NC: 2026:KHC:36375 WP No. 14825 of 2022 However, on the ground of delay without going into the merits of the case, the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The case of the petitioners is that the land was sold in the year 1984 and a challenge to the same under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was first made in the year 2013 after an unreasonable delay of around 29 years. This, according to the petitioners, is in violation of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. 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. 5. Respondent Nos.3 to 9, who are legal representatives of the grantee, are absent. 6. Learned HCGP, though justifies the order passed by the first and second respondents, is unable to dispute - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010333222022 NC: 2026:KHC:36375 WP No. 14825 of 2022 the fact that the sale has been challenged after a lapse of 29 years under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 7. The delay of 29 years under the given facts and circumstances of the case has to be considered unreasonable and it becomes fatal to the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under Section 5 of the PTCL Act as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi, as well as the decision of this Court in R. Suresh Mohan in W.P.No.3597/2018 supra. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 07.07.2022 bearing no. ¦.n.¹.J¯ï(J):5/2021 passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure - C to the writ petition, is hereby set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010333222022 NC: 2026:KHC:36375 WP No. 14825 of 2022 iii. The impugned order dated 16.02.2016 bearing no. ¦.n.¹.J¯ï/.¹.J¯ï.PÉ/01/13-14 passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure - A to the writ petition, is hereby set aside. iv. The application filed against the petitioners under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, in respect of the land which is the subject matter of the writ petition stands dismissed. v. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41