- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34192 WP No. 24499 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.24499 OF 2024 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MUSTAQ AHMED AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O SRI MOHAMED ISMAIL, RESIDING AT NO.485/A, MASJID ROAD, KURUBARAPALYA, MULBAGILU TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIKAS NAGAIAH C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANASOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB DIVISION, KOLAR - 563 101. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34192 WP No. 24499 of 2024 4. SRI YALLAPPA AGE MAJOR S/O SRI JANARDHAN RESIDING AT JAMANAHALLI VILLAGE KOTHAMANGALA POST, AVANI HOBLI, MULABAGILU TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131. 5. SRI NAGABUSHANAIAH AGE MAJOR S/O SRI JANARDHAN RESIDING AT JAMANAHALLI VILLAGE KOTHAMANGALA POST, AVANI HOBLI, MULABAGILU TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131. 6. SRI JANARDHAN AGE MAJOR S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA RESIDING AT JAMANAHALLI VILLAGE KOTHAMANGALA POST, AVANI HOBLI, MULABAGILU TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131. 7. SRI SRINIVAS AGE MAJOR S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA RESIDING AT JAMANAHALLI VILLAGE KOTHAMANGALA POST AVANI HOBLI, MULABAGILU TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131. 8. SRI NARAYANASWAMY AGE MAJOR S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA RESIDING AT JAMANAHALLI VILLAGE KOTHAMANGALA POST, AVANI HOBLI, MULABAGILU TALUK, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34192 WP No. 24499 of 2024 KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131. … RESPONDENTS [BY SMT. ANITHA N., AGA., FOR R.1 TO R.3; SRI. N. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.4 AND R.5 (ABSENT); R.6 TO R.8: SERVED.] THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2023, THE KARNATAKA ACT NO.30 OF 2023, THE KARNATAKA SCHEDULE CASTES AND SCHEDULE TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2023, DATED 27.07.2023 BEARING NO.DPAL 25 SHASANA 2023 BENGALURU ISSUED BY SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND STRIKE DOWN THE SAME AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-E, ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34192 WP No. 24499 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The land is said to have been granted in favour of the ancestor of respondent Nos.4 to 8 in the year 1941, because he belonged to Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe community. In the year 2004, respondent Nos.6 to 8, along with another descendant of the original grantee, sold the same in favour of the petitioner. It came to be challenged by respondent nos.4 and 5, who are the sons of respondent no.6, by filing an application before respondent no.3 - Assistant Commissioner, in the year 2021. The said application was allowed. Against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent - Deputy Commissioner, which has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that there is an unreasonable delay of 17 years in filing the application under the provisions of Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short "the PTCL Act") by respondent Nos.4 and 5. It is further submitted that respondent Nos.6 to 8, who have actually alienated the property and are still alive, have not challenged - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34192 WP No. 24499 of 2024 the said sale transaction and respondent Nos.4 and 5 who happens to be children of respondent no.6, cannot challenge the same. On the said ground, it is prayed, that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned orders be set aside. 3. In the course of argument, though learned counsel for the petitioner had challenged the constitutional validity of the amendment carried out to Section 5 of the PTCL Act, he submitted that the said prayer is not pressed. His submission is placed on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 has remained absent. Respondent Nos.6 to 8 have also remained absent and are unrepresented. 5. Learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 justifies the impugned orders and submits that the sale is in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act and hence, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. The facts that the grant was made in the year 1941 and the sale took place in the year 2004 and the sale was made by respondents Nos.6 to 8 along with one of their relative, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34192 WP No. 24499 of 2024 respondent No.6 is still alive and the challenge to the sale after a lapse of 17 years was made by children of respondent no.6 i.e., respondent Nos.4 and 5, are not disputed. 7. There is an unreasonable delay of 17 years in challenging the sale, which is unexplained. Under the circumstances as per the ratio laid down by 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, disposed of on 06.07.2026, the sale made in favour of the petitioner herein cannot be annulled. Further, when respondent No.6, who is alive, has not challenged the sale, respondent Nos.4 and 5, without any right dwelling upon them in respect of the property concerned, cannot challenge the same. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER i. The writ petition is hereby allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34192 WP No. 24499 of 2024 ii. The impugned order dated 13.10.2023 bearing No. J¯ï.J£ï.r./J¸ï.¹.J¸ï.n/07/2021 passed by respondent No.3 (vide Annexure-'B' to the writ petition) is hereby set aside. iii. The impugned order dated 16.07.2024 bearing No.¦.n.¹.J¯ï/03/2024 passed by respondent No.2 (vide Annexure-'D' to the writ petition) is hereby set aside. iv. The petition filed by respondent nos.4 and 5 before respondent no.3 is hereby dismissed. v. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33