- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010559622024 NC: 2026:KHC:38370 WP No. 26305 of 2024 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. 26305 OF 2024 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. MUNIYAPPA @ PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS S/O LATE MADANNA R/AT THIMMASANDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 106. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHADRINATH R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010559622024 NC: 2026:KHC:38370 WP No. 26305 of 2024 BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 009. 4. SRI NAGAPPA (SINCE DECEASED BY LRS) SMT. MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS W/O LATE NAGAPPA 5. SRI. MUNIKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O LATE NAGAPPA 6. SMT. LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS D/O LATE NAGAPPA 7. SMT. VENKATA LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS D/O LATE NAGAPPA 8. SMT. SUNITHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS D/O LATE NAGAPPA 9. SRI. GOVINDARAJUA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O LATE NAGAPPA RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT BOVIPALYA NAVARATHNA AGRAHARA BHOVI SADAHALLI POST, JALA HOBLI - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010559622024 NC: 2026:KHC:38370 WP No. 26305 of 2024 YALAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562 157 BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHAIRAVA KUTTAIAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R9) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2023, THE KARNATAKA ACT NO.30/2023, THE KARNATAKA SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) (AMENDMENT) ACT 2023, DATED 27.07.2023 BEARING NO.DPAL 25 SHASANA 2023 BENGALURU AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND STRIKE DOWN THE SAME AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-K AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010559622024 NC: 2026:KHC:38370 WP No. 26305 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. The land which is the subject matter of the writ petition was granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1942. He belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. The said land was sold in the year 1962 in violation of the non- alienation clause subject to which the grant was made. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act') came into force on 01.01.1979. An application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed by one Nagappa (legal representative of the original grantee) for the first time in the year 2014. The said application was allowed by respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of respondent no.3 has been dismissed by respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been allowed inspite of an unreasonable delay of 52 years since the date of the sale and - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010559622024 NC: 2026:KHC:38370 WP No. 26305 of 2024 around 35 years from the date of the Act coming into force and the said delay is unexplained. On the said ground, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 3. In the course of the arguments learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, he has challenged the constitutional validity of the amendment made to Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2023. However, he submits that he does not press for the same. His submission is placed on record. 4. Learned counsel for respondent nos.4 to 9 as well as learned AGA justify the impugned orders and pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The only question that arises for consideration is whether there is any inordinate unreasonable delay in making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 as well as the decision of this Court in the case of R.Suresh Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.3597/2018 have held that if there is an unreasonable delay in challenging - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010559622024 NC: 2026:KHC:38370 WP No. 26305 of 2024 the sale, it becomes fatal to the application made under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 7. Admittedly, in the instant case there is a delay of around 35 years in challenging the sale from the date of PTCL Act coming into force. The said delay is not explained and under the given facts and circumstances of the case, it has to be held as unreasonable. 8. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Impugned order dated 20.07.2024 passed by respondent no.2 bearing no.J¸ï.¹.J¸ï.n C¦Ã®Ä20/2016-17 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (ii) Impugned order dated 29.04.2016 passed by respondent no.3 bearing no.K SC/ST(A)80/2013-14 vide Annexure-B to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (iii) The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act filed by one Nagappa (legal representative - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010559622024 NC: 2026:KHC:38370 WP No. 26305 of 2024 of original grantee) before respondent no.3 is dismissed; (iv) The writ petition stands allowed accordingly; (v) Revenue entries in respect of the property shall be restored in the name of the person in whose name it was standing prior to initiation of the proceedings under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47