- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010370172025 NC: 2026:KHC:38491 WP No. 16458 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 16458 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: SMT. V. NAGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O LATE B.V.SONNE GOWDA, RESIDING AT BANDARLAHALLI VILLAGE, SOMENAHALLI HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK-501 209, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHADRINATH R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKBALLAPUR-561 209. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010370172025 NC: 2026:KHC:38491 WP No. 16458 of 2025 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPUR-561 209, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. 4. SRI. ANANDA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O. LATE ADEPPA, RESIDING AT J.P.NAGAR, (BEECHAGANAHALLI TIRUVU) VILLAGE, SOMENAHALLI HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK-561 209, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. DYLAN DOMINIC, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORD IN APPEAL NO.PTCL/018 OF 2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER ORDER DATED 09.05.2025 AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDE CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010370172025 NC: 2026:KHC:38491 WP No. 16458 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The land which is the subject matter of the writ petition was granted to the original grantee in the year 1982. He belonged to the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe Community. Respondent No.4 is said to be the legal representative of the original grantee. 2. The land was sold to the petitioner in the year 2000, after the lapse of non-alienation period. However, the sale has taken place 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'). For the first time, the sale has been challenged by filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2023. Respondent No.3 - the Assistant Commissioner has allowed the application. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Deputy - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010370172025 NC: 2026:KHC:38491 WP No. 16458 of 2025 Commissioner has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. In the writ petition, apart from the petitioner requesting setting aside the orders of respondent No.3 - the Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.2 - the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner has also prayed for declaring the amendment carried out to Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2023 as ultra vires the Constitution of India. However, in the course of the arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he does not press the said prayer. His submission is placed on record. 4. The question that arises for consideration is; Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, whether there is an inordinate and unreasonable delay on the part of respondent No.4 in challenging the sale made in favour of - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010370172025 NC: 2026:KHC:38491 WP No. 16458 of 2025 the petitioner and does it becomes fatal to the case of respondent No.4? 5. Admittedly, the sale was of the year 2000, after a lapse of non-alienation period and the State is not in a position to submit how it would have refused permission if permission was sought from the parties concerned at the time of the sale for the said transaction. 6. Further, the challenge to the sale is made for the first time in the year 2023 after a lapse of around 23 years. The delay is not satisfactorily explained by respondent No.4. Under the given facts and circumstances the case, the delay has to be considered as unreasonable. Under the circumstances, taking into consideration, the ratio laid down 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 - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010370172025 NC: 2026:KHC:38491 WP No. 16458 of 2025 W.P.No.3597/2018, the unreasonable delay becomes fatal to the case of respondent No.4. 7. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 19.03.2025 bearing Case No.
ಎ (ಗು ) 100/2023-24 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure - B to the writ petition is hereby set aside. iii. The impugned order dated 09.05.2025 bearing Case No.PTCL/018/2025 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure - A to the writ petition is hereby set aside. iv. The application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act filed by respondent No.4 before respondent No.3 stands dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010370172025 NC: 2026:KHC:38491 WP No. 16458 of 2025 v. The status of the parties in respect of the property shall be restored to the position that they were in before filing of the petition under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. Revenue entries if changed will stand corrected accordingly. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21