- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35817 WP No. 34167 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 34167 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: SMT. MANJU KATHURI W/O. SRI. K. KATHURI, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.90/75, CHIKKASANDRA VILLAGE, SOMPURA GATE, B.HOSAHALLI ROAD, SOMPURA VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 560 099, BANGALORE DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE - 560 009. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 027. 3. MR. C.M. SHIVASHANKARA.C. SON OF MR. MUNITHAYAPPA @ CHIKKA MUNITHAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35817 WP No. 34167 of 2025 R/AT. DODDATHIMMASANDRA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA N, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. PRAKASH T HEBBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER APPEAL PTCL 28/2023, DATED: 11.09.2025 ANNEXURE 'A' PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT I.E., THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE DISTRICT IN KSC & ST (A) 28/2020-21, DATED: 07.03.2023 I.E., ANNEXURE 'B' AND THUS DISMISS THE PETITION FILED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT UNDER SEC. 5(1) (A) AND (B) OF THE KARNATAKA SC AND ST (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) ACT, 1978 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35817 WP No. 34167 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Respondent No.3 is the legal heir of the original grantee. The petitioner is the purchaser of the land. The land was granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1979. It was sold in the year 2007 without obtaining the necessary permission from the State. It was challenged for the first time, by making 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') in the year 2021. The application made by respondent No.3 was dismissed by respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner on the ground of inordinate delay in preferring the same. An appeal filed by respondent No.3 before respondent No.1 has been allowed in the light of amendment carried out under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35817 WP No. 34167 of 2025 2. The case of the petitioner is that, irrespective of the amendment that has been carried out to Section 5 of the PTCL Act by virtue of the decision of 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, the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is liable to be set aside. 3. The learned Additional Government Advocate as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 justify the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Admittedly, the property has been sold in the year 2007 and a challenge to the same has been made in the year 2021 after an inordinate delay. The said delay has not been explained satisfactorily by respondent No.3 and under the facts and circumstances of the case, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35817 WP No. 34167 of 2025 delay has to be considered unreasonable. This Court, in W.P.No.3597/2018, relying upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Gouramma @ Gangamma vs. The Deputy Commissioner and Others in W.A.No.100101/2024, has held that, irrespective of the amendment carried out to Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2023, if there is an inordinate delay in challenging the sale made, then in that event, it becomes fatal to the case of the person making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 11.09.2025 bearing Case No.PTCL/28/2023 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure - A to the writ petition, is hereby set aside. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35817 WP No. 34167 of 2025 iii. The impugned order 07.03.2023 bearing No.KSC & ST(A) NO:28/2020-21 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure - B to the writ petition is upheld. iv. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22