- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35433 WP No. 38266 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.38266 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI B V LAKSHMINARAYANA, S/O. D R VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDENT OF WARD NO.13, BAJAR ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, DEVANAHALLI-562 110 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENUGOPALA M S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT OFFICES COMPLEX, VAPASANDRA, CHICKABALLAPURA-562 101. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHICKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT OFFICES COMPLEX, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35433 WP No. 38266 of 2025 VAPASANDRA, CHICKABALLAPURA-562 101. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, CHICKABALLAPURA TALUK, OFFICE OF TAHSILDAR, DISTRICT OFFICES COMPLEX, VAPASANDRA, CHICKABALLAPURA-562 101. 4. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA, W/O VENKATASHAMI @ VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDENT OF YALUVAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHICKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 102. 5. SMT. ASHA, D/O. VENKATASHAMI @ VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDENT OF YALUVAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHICKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 102. 6. SMT. RAJAMMA, W/O M KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDENT OF YALUVAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHICKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA N., AGA., FOR R.1 TO R.3; SRI. MANJUNATHA S.P., ADVOCATE FOR R.4 AND R.5; R.6 : SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35433 WP No. 38266 of 2025 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHICKABALLAPURA DISTRICT IN CASE NO.PTCL/29/2025 DATED 21.11.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-R; 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 in the name of the original grantee in the year 1953. For the first time, it was sold in the year 1974. Presently, petitioner is the owner of the property. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the legal representatives of the original grantee. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 preferred 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 2023. The Assistant Commissioner, by the impugned order dated 02.05.2025, allowed the application and ordered resumption and restoration of the land in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 - - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35433 WP No. 38266 of 2025 Deputy Commissioner. The same has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent nos.4 and 5 filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act after an inordinate delay of 49 years. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court in 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 same ought not to have been entertained, however, respondent No.2 and 1 have erroneously entertained the application. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned orders be set aside. 3. Learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 justifies the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. It is seen that the grant was made in the year 1953. The sale was made in the year 1974. The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed in the year 2023. It shows that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35433 WP No. 38266 of 2025 there has been an inordinate delay of 49 years. The delay has not been satisfactorily explained by respondent Nos.4 and 5 and under the circumstances, the same has to be considered as unreasonable. Applying 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 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 petition filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act ought to have been rejected by the authorities concerned. Hence the following:- ORDER i. The writ petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 02.05.2025 bearing No.¦n¹J¯ï(aPÀÌ)10/2024-25 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-'P' to the writ petition is hereby set aside. iii. The impugned order dated 21.11.2025 bearing No.PTCL/29/2025 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-'R' to the writ petition is hereby set aside. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35433 WP No. 38266 of 2025 iv. The application filed under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act by respondent Nos.4 and 5 before respondent No.2 stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63