- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010539852023 NC: 2026:KHC:36438 WP No. 22822 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 22822 OF 2023 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. B.V.AMARNATHA GUPTA S/O VENUGOPALA GUPATA DEAD BY LR'S 1(a) SUDHAMANI B.A. W/O LATE B.V.AMARNATHA GUPTA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 1(b) AMITH GUPTA B.A. S/O LATE B.V.AMARNATHA GUPTA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 1(c) AJITH GUPTA B.A. S/O LATE B.V.AMARNATHA GUPTA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 1(d) ANKITHA UTTAM KUMAR BHUPAL D/O LATE B.V.AMARNATHA GUPTA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS ALL ARE R/O NEAR BALAJI TALKIES PAVAGADA ROAD CHALLAKERE TOWN. 2. G.K.PHANINANDA KUMAR S/O KENCHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O GANDHINAGAR CHALLAKERE TOWN-577 522. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010539852023 NC: 2026:KHC:36438 WP No. 22822 of 2023 AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA-577 501. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISON CHITRADURGA-577 501. 3. RUDRAMMA W/O LATE RUDRAPPA D/O A.D.HANUMAIAH AGED MAJOR 4. DEVEERAMMA W/O MAHALINGAPPA D/O A.D.HANUMAIAH AGED MAJOR BOTH ARE R/O YEDEHALLI VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301. 5. R.S.THIPPESWAMY S/O SANNANAGAPPA AGED MAJOR R/O RANGASAMUDRA PAVAGADA TALUK-561 202. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH D.NAIK, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. KUMARA K.G., ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4; R5 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA IN NO.SCPTL(A)-21/2022 DATED 14.09.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-H TO THE WP AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010539852023 NC: 2026:KHC:36438 WP No. 22822 of 2023 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. The land was granted to the original grantee in the year 1955 and he belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. The contention of the petitioners is that the land was granted under Grow More Food Scheme for a consideration and not a Darkast grant, while the contesting respondents submit that it was a Darkast grant. Be that as it may, the land was sold in the year 1959. For the first time it was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2020, after a lapse of 61 years from the date of sale and 41 years from the date of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the PTCL Act') coming into force. Respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner has dismissed the said application. Against the said order, the legal representatives of the original grantee preferred an appeal and respondent no.1-Deputy Commissioner - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010539852023 NC: 2026:KHC:36438 WP No. 22822 of 2023 has allowed the appeal. Against the said order, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioners is that, even presuming the land is a granted land, challenge to the same has been made belatedly after lapse of 61 years from the date of sale and the delay has to be considered unreasonable in the light of the judgment passed by 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 and for that reason, they pray for the impugned order passed by respondent no.1 be set aside. 3. Both the learned AGA appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4 justify the impugned order and pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Admittedly, the property was sold in the year 1959 and for the first time, the same has been challenged by making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2020. There has been an unreasonable delay of 61 years in - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010539852023 NC: 2026:KHC:36438 WP No. 22822 of 2023 challenging the said sale. As per the law laid down by 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, when there is an unreasonable delay, an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act is liable to be rejected. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by respondent no.1 has to be considered unreasonable. 5. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 14.09.2023 bearing No.¦n¹J¯ï(J)-21/2022 passed by respondent no.1 (vide Annexure-H to the writ petition) is hereby set aside; (ii) The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG