- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35199 WP No. 7831 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. 7831 OF 2024 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: M C MUTHANNA S/O CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, SULUGODU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU - 570 005 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU - 570 008 3. SRI DASABOVI S/O LATE GOVINDA BOVI MAJOR, 4. SRI RAMESHA S/O DASA BOVI MAJOR, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35199 WP No. 7831 of 2024 RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE RESIDING AT SULUGODU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MUTHURU POST, PERIYANPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHANDINI S., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2 SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R.GOULAY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DATED 02/01/2024 IN PTCL 31/2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 02.01.2024 passed by respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A to the writ petition, wherein the land which is the subject matter of the writ petition has been ordered to be resumed and restored in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35199 WP No. 7831 of 2024 2. The land was granted in favour of the forefather of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the year 1971. It was sold in favour of the petitioner in the year 1995, without obtaining the necessary permission from the State as contemplated under Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act'). However, an application for resumption and restoration of the land was made by respondent Nos.3 and 4 has laid as in the year 2017. Respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the claim of respondent Nos.3 and 4 on the ground of unreasonable delay in the said application. Aggrieved by the same, respondent Nos.3 and 4 preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner, who relying upon the amendment carried out to the Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2023, came to the conclusion that irrespective of the delay in making the application, the lands requires to be resumed and restored as it was a granted land. Hence, he passed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35199 WP No. 7831 of 2024 the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Admittedly, the land was granted in favour of the forefather of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the year 1971 and the same was sold in the year 1995. After an inordinate delay of around 23 years, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have challenged the said sale. 4. This Court in R.Suresh Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.3597/2018, relying upon the order passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.100101/2024 has come to the conclusion that amendment to Section 5 of the PTCL Act does not save the transactions challenged belatedly beyond unreasonable time. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 has held that a person claiming resumption and restoration of the land has to challenge the sale within a reasonable period. In the present instance, the inordinate delay of 23 years in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35199 WP No. 7831 of 2024 making the necessary application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act is unexplained by respondent Nos.3 and 4. Under the said circumstances, the order of respondent No.2 requires to be upheld and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The impugned order dated 02.01.2024 bearing No. ಎ 31/2019 (ಆ 0050000257446) passed by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside and the order dated 28.10.2019 bearing No....ಎ:01/2018 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby upheld. ii. The Writ Petition is hereby allowed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22