- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010577032023 NC: 2026:KHC:36649 WP No. 24580 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. 24580 OF 2023 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SOWBHAGYAMMA W/O LATE SHIVALINGAIAH AGED 78 YEARS 2. SMT. KATHAYINI (PUTTI) D/O LATE SHIVALINGAIAH AGED 50 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 ARE R/O DODDAKUNNALA VILLAGE KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT. PETITIONER NO.2 IS ALSO RESIDING AT ANDRAHALLI BASAVESHWARA CIRCLE VEHSWANEEDAM POST BENGLAURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 091. 3. SMT. K.S. PRATHIMA W/O CHIDANANDAIAH D/O LATE SHIVALINGAIAH AGED 48 YEARS R/O BENACHIGERE NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT. 4. SMT. K.S.MANJULA Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010577032023 NC: 2026:KHC:36649 WP No. 24580 of 2023 W/O NEELAKNTAIAH AGED 46 YEARS R/AT KATTIGANAHALLI VILLAGE KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURUR TQ. AND DIST. 5. SRI. RAJASHEKARAIAH D/O LATE SHIVALINGAIAH AGED 62 YEARS 6. SRI. DAYANANDA S/O LATE SHIVALINGAIAH AGED 57 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.5 AND 6 ARE R/O DODDAKUNNALA VILLAGE KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TLAUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.B.CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPT., M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT TUMAKURU-572 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMOSSIONER TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION TUMAKURU-572 101. 4. SRI. M. MALLESHAIAH S/O LATE MYLAIAH AGED MAJOR R/O DODDAKUNNALA VILLAGE - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010577032023 NC: 2026:KHC:36649 WP No. 24580 of 2023 KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMKAKURU DISTRICT-572 219. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.01.2023 IN CASE NO.PTCL-4/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU VIDE ANNEXURE-J, IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.104, MEASURING 4-00 ACRES OF THE LAND SITUATED AT KUNNALA VILLAGE, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ETC. 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 to the original grantee in the year 1971 and he belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. The land was sold in the year 1975. For the first time it was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2011 by filing 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'), after a - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010577032023 NC: 2026:KHC:36649 WP No. 24580 of 2023 lapse of 36 years from the date of sale and 32 years from the date of the PTCL Act coming into force. Respondent no.3- Assistant Commissioner has dismissed the said application. Against the said order, the legal representative of the original grantee preferred an appeal and respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner has partly-allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to respondent no.3 for fresh consideration. Against the said order, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioners is that challenge to the sale has been made belatedly after a lapse of 36 years from the date of sale and the delay has to be considered as 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.2 be set aside. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010577032023 NC: 2026:KHC:36649 WP No. 24580 of 2023 3. Both the learned HCGP appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondent no.4 justify the impugned order and pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Admittedly, the property was sold in the year 1975 and for the first time, the same has been challenged by making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2011. There has been an unreasonable delay of 36 years in 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.2 has to be considered unreasonable. 5. Hence, the following: - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010577032023 NC: 2026:KHC:36649 WP No. 24580 of 2023 ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 02.01.2023 bearing No.¦.n.¹.J¯ï-04/2019 passed by respondent no.2 (vide Annexure-J to the writ petition) is hereby set aside; (ii) The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39