- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010100482022 NC: 2026:KHC:36374 WP No. 4887 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. 4887 OF 2022 (SCST) BETWEEN: SRI. R. SURESH MOHAN, S/O RANGAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.13, 3RD CROSS, BHARATIYAR ROAD, CHOLAIMEDU, CHENNAI - 600 074, TAMIL NADU. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECRETARY, M S BUILDING, B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLLEGALA SUB- DIVISION, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010100482022 NC: 2026:KHC:36374 WP No. 4887 of 2022 KOLLEGALA, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 715. 4. CHIKKASAVUKAIAH, S/O LATE SAVUKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT MANGALA VILLAGE, KANNUR HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 126. 5. SMT. CHOWDAMMA, W/O CHIKKA SAVUKAIAH AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT MANGALA VILLAGE, KANNUR HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 126. 6. SRI. PUTTARAJ, S/O LATE JAYARAJU, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/AT MANGALA VILLAGE, KANNUR HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 126. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.YOGESH D NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; R4, R5 AND R6 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010100482022 NC: 2026:KHC:36374 WP No. 4887 of 2022 DATED 02.08.2021 PASSED BY THE R2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, PRODUCED UNDER ANNEXURE-A NO.PTCL.10/2016-17; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.10.2016 PASSED BY THE R3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLLEGAL SUB-DIVISION, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, PRODUCED UNDER ANNEXURE- B NO.PTCL.01/2011-12 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 original grantee/respondent No.4 was granted the land which is the subject matter of the writ petition in the year 1967. He belonged to a Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe community. 2. The land was sold in favour of the mother of the petitioner in the year 1967 itself in violation of the terms and conditions of the grant. Since then the purchaser and after her demise, the petitioners have been in possession of the property. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010100482022 NC: 2026:KHC:36374 WP No. 4887 of 2022 3. Though the same was sold in the year 1967, for the first time 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') was filed in the year 2011. Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner has allowed the application in part and has resumed the land in favour of the government. In the said proceedings the petitioner was placed exparte. Thereafter, the order passed by respondent No.3 was challenged by the original grantee before respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, in which the petitioner also filed a cross-objections. Respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner has dismissed both the appeal filed by the original grantee as well as the petitioner herein and has upheld the order passed by respondent No.3- Assistant Commissioner wherein the land was resumed in favour of the government. Aggrieved by the same, the purchaser has preferred this writ petition. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010100482022 NC: 2026:KHC:36374 WP No. 4887 of 2022 4. The case of the petitioner is that there has been an inordinate delay in preferring the proceedings before respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner and the same is required to be considered unreasonable. It is his contention that the same 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. Admittedly, there has been a delay of around 44 years in making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The reason for the delay has not been explained. As per the ratio 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, the delay has to be considered unreasonable and the application deserves to be rejected. The interim orders - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010100482022 NC: 2026:KHC:36374 WP No. 4887 of 2022 have been passed without taking this aspect into consideration. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 02.08.2021 bearing No. ¦.n.¹.J¯ï.10/2016-17 passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure - A to the writ petition, is hereby set aside. iii. The impugned order dated 25.10.2016 bearing No. ¦.n.¹.J¯ï.01/2011-2012 passed by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure - B to the writ petition, is hereby set aside. iv. The application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, in respect of the land which is the subject matter of the writ petition before - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010100482022 NC: 2026:KHC:36374 WP No. 4887 of 2022 respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner stands dismissed. v. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40