- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010040442024 NC: 2026:KHC:36585 WP No. 2828 of 2024 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.2828 OF 2024 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PUSHPALATHA W/O CHANDARA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT STORE BEEDHI, HUNASURU TOWN, HUNASURU TALUK DISTRICT MYSURU-571 105. 2. SRI C N PRABHU S/O SRI NANJUNDACHAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDENT OF HULIYURU VILLAGE CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101. 3. SRI M B DINESH KUMAR S/O M B BHADRACHAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT BHAGYALAKSHMI NILAYA HOUSE NO.117, ROHITH NAGAR NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SARITHA A.L., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. SHANKARACHAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010040442024 NC: 2026:KHC:36585 WP No. 2828 of 2024 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU-570 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HUNASURU SUB-DIVISION HUNASURU-571 105. 4. SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O LATE RAMABOYI MAJOR RESIDENT OF MUKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI HUNSURU DISTRICT MYSURU-571 105. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP., FOR R.1 TO R.3; R.4: SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2018 IN CASE NO.PTCL:05/2015-16 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HUNASUR SUB-DIVISION, HUNASUR, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D, ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010040442024 NC: 2026:KHC:36585 WP No. 2828 of 2024 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 which is the subject matter of the writ petition was granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1980 on the ground that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe community, subject to a non-alienation clause for a period of 15 years. He has sold the land in the year 2002 to the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner herein, without obtaining the necessary permission from the Government as contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act'). However, it was challenged belatedly by respondent No.4 for the first time in the year 2015 by preferring an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The same has been allowed by respondent No.3- Assistant Commissioner, who has ordered for restoration of the land in favour of respondent no.4, who is the legal - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010040442024 NC: 2026:KHC:36585 WP No. 2828 of 2024 representative of the original grantee. The petitioners filed an appeal against the said order before respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner. The said order has been upheld by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the said land has been sold after the non-alienation period. It is further submitted, though no permission was obtained from the Government as contemplated under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, there has been an unreasonable delay of 13 years in challenging the said sale and based upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 and this Court in W.P.No.3597/2018, the application should not have been entertained by respondent No.3. For that reason, it is prayed that the impugned orders be set aside. 3. Respondent no.4, though served with the notice, has remained absent. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010040442024 NC: 2026:KHC:36585 WP No. 2828 of 2024 4. Learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 justifies the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the petition. However, she does not dispute the aforementioned facts of the case pleaded by the petitioners. 5. Admittedly, there is a delay of 13 years in challenging the sale. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the same has to be considered unreasonable in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 and this Court in WP No.3597/2018. When there is an unreasonable delay in filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, the same deserves to be dismissed and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 6. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned order bearing No.PTCL.05/2015- 16 dated 15.12.2018 passed by respondent No.3 (vide Annexure-D to the writ petition) is set aside - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010040442024 NC: 2026:KHC:36585 WP No. 2828 of 2024 and the impugned order bearing No.PTCL 08/2019 dated 19.12.2023 passed by respondent No.2 (vide Annexure-E to the writ petition) is set aside; (iii) The application filed by respondent No.4 under Section 5 of the PTCL Act is dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45