- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35803 WP No. 22008 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 22008 OF 2023 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA S/O SONNA PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT KONASANDRA VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 105. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDA BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU-560 002. SMT. VENKATAMMA Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35803 WP No. 22008 of 2023 SINCE DEAD BY HER L.Rs. ARE ALREADY ON RECORD SRI. CHOWDAPPA S/O LATE YELLAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 4. SMT. SALLAPURIYAMMA W/O LATE CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 5. SRI. ASWAWTH C. S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 6. SRI. KANTHARAJU C. S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 7. SRI. YELLAPPA C. S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 8. SRI. NAGARAJ C. S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 9. SRI. GOPALAPPA S/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT YEARS 10. SRI. RAMAPPA S/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35803 WP No. 22008 of 2023 11. SRI. YELLAPPA S/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT MUTTURAYASWAMY DODDI HAMLET OF MAHANTALINGAPURA JIGANI HOBLI, ANKEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 105. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA N., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. G.MANIVANNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R11) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE SC.ST(APPEAL)66/2015-16, DATED 25.05.2022 AND TO CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN CASE NO.K.SC.ST(A)49/2013-14 DATED 24.06.2015, VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING OLD SY.NO.18/16TH BLOCK, NEW SY.NO.18/P13, MEASURING 4.00 ACRES SITUATED AT GIDDEANAHALLI VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT 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: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35803 WP No. 22008 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER The land was granted in favour of petitioner in the year 1962 as he belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. The condition in the grant was that the land cannot be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of grant. After the lapse of 15 years, on 11.03.1978 the petitioner and his brother sold the land in favour of one late Venkatamma, whose legal heirs are respondent nos.4 to 11 herein. In the year 2013, the petitioner made 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') for resumption and restoration of the land in his favour. Respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner allowed the application filed by the petitioner. However, the same has been reversed by respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the land is a granted land and he belongs to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community and that the land has been sold by him without - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35803 WP No. 22008 of 2023 taking necessary permission from the State Government and hence, the sale requires to be set aside and the land is required to be restored in his favour and respondent no.3-the Assistant Commissioner passed the order in accordance with law and respondent no.2-the Deputy Commissioner has erroneously set aside the said order. On the said ground, it is prayed that the impugned order passed by respondent no.2 be set aside. 3. Learned AGA supports the contention of the petitioner and prays for allowing of the writ petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 to 11 justifies the order of respondent no.2 and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Admittedly, petitioner was granted a land in the year 1962 with a condition that the said land should not be alienated for a period of 15 years. He belongs to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community. He has sold the land after the lapse of the said 15 years on 11.03.1978. 6. Section 4 of the PTCL Act reads as under: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35803 WP No. 22008 of 2023 "4. Prohibition of transfer of granted lands.- (1) Notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of this Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant, or sub-section (2) shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer. (2) No person shall, after the commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government. (3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to the sale of any land in execution of a decree or order of a civil court or of any award or order of any other authority" 7. A bare perusal of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act shows that the said provision has a retrospective effect and when alienation takes place in violation of the grant condition, even if it is prior to the Act coming into force, the said transaction can be questioned. However Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act has no retrospective application and permission of the Government is required only for lands sought to be transferred subsequent to commencement of the Act. The Act came into force on 01.01.1979. Thus, under the circumstances, it has to be held - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35803 WP No. 22008 of 2023 that the sale did not take place in violation of any terms of the grant for the purposes of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act. Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act has no applicability because the transaction has taken place before commencement of the Act. The stand of learned AGA in supporting the case of the petitioner is baffling. Further, there has been an inordinate delay on part of the petitioner in challenging the sale. An application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been made after a lapse of 35 years and the delay also has to be considered unreasonable. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34