- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35197 WP No. 24660 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 24660 OF 2024 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI N PILLAPPA @ N. PILLANNA SON OF SRI LATE NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RESIDING AT CHEEMASANDRA BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 049 OLD ADDRESS: GARUDACHARPALYA BEHIND MAHADEVAPURA BBMP OFFICE MAHADEVAPURA POST BENGALURU - 560 048 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AMARESH A. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU CITY DISTRICT K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009 Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35197 WP No. 24660 of 2024 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION KANDHAYA BHAVAN K G ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009 4. TAHASILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK K R PURAM BENGALURU - 560 036 5. SRI RAMESH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 6. SRI A NARAYANA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 7. SMT. CHANDRAKALA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 7 ARE SONS AND DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI. ABBAIAH RESIDING AT NO. 158 EMMADIHALLI MAIN ROAD EMMADIHALLI VILLAGE AND POST BENGALURU - 560 066 8. SMT. SHARADAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE ABBAIAH WIFE OF SRINIVS AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESDIING AT NO. 105 I CROSS, VIJANAPURA DOORAVANI NAGAR POST BENGALURU - 560 061 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35197 WP No. 24660 of 2024 9. SMT. NEETHRAVATHI DAUGHTHER OF LATE ABBAIAH WIFE OF PRADEEP AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS HAROHALLI VILLAGE MUTTHASANDRA PSOT ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. MANJUNATHA M., ADVCOATE FOR R5 TO R9 (ABSENT)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU CITY DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN CASE NO.SC/ST APPEAL NO.30/2023 DATED 22.02.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU, IN CASE NO.K.SC.ST.(BE).103/2014-15 DATED 14.12.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35197 WP No. 24660 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The land, which is the subject matter of the writ petition was granted in favour of the forefather of respondent Nos.5 to 9 in the year 1941. It is the case of the petitioner is that, incidentally the forefather of respondent Nos.5 to 9 happened to be a person belonging to the Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes Community and that the grant was made not because he belonged to the said community. However, the said fact is seriously disputed by the learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 9 is absent. 3. Nevertheless, the undisputed facts of the case are that in the year 1941, the land was granted in favour of the forefather of respondent Nos.5 to 9. The land was sold in favour of the petitioner in the year 1994. That for the first time, an application under Section 5 of the PTCL - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35197 WP No. 24660 of 2024 Act was filed before respondent No.3 - the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2015. 4. It is the case of the petitioner is that, even presuming that the land was granted in favour of the forefather of respondent Nos.5 to 9, because he happened to be a person belonging to the Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes Community and under the Agrarian Reforms law, there has been an inordinate delay of 21 years in challenging the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner herein and respondent Nos.2 and 3 ought not to have passed the impugned orders, which have the effect of resumption and restoration of the land in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 9. 5. Admittedly, there is an inordinate delay of 21 years in making the necessary application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The said fact is not in dispute. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35197 WP No. 24660 of 2024 6. Though the learned High Court Government Pleader justifies the impugned orders, she is unable to dispute the said fact. 7. By virtue of the orders passed 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, an unexplained and unreasonable delay of 21 years as in the instant case becomes fatal to the claim made by respondent Nos.5 to 9 and under the circumstances, the impugned orders ought not to have been passed by respondent Nos.3 and 2. Hence, the same are liable to be set aside. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 22.02.2024 bearing No. ಎ..ಎ. ಅೕಲು ನಂ.30/2023 passed by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35197 WP No. 24660 of 2024 respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition is hereby set aside. iii. The impugned order dated 14.12.2022 bearing No.K.SC.ST(BE): 103/2014-2015 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-B to the writ petition is hereby set aside. iv. The petition filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act filed by respondent Nos.5 to 9 before respondent No.3 stands dismissed. v. It is needless to state that pursuant to allowing of the writ petition, the petitioner is entitled to get the revenue documents in respect of the subject land concerned mutated in his name, in accordance with law. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48