- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010546012025 NC: 2026:KHC:39528 WP No. 25137 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.25137 OF 2025 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. K.M.MUNISWAMY S/O. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT KAMATHAMPALLI VILLAGE, RONURHOBLI, SRINIVASPUR TALUK-563 135. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAHUL S. REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560001. 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 CNR: KAHC010546012025 NC: 2026:KHC:39528 WP No. 25137 of 2025 4. SHIVANNA, S/O THAMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT KAMATHAMPALLI VILLAGE, RONURHOBLI, SRINIVASPUR TALUK-563 135. …RESPONDENTS [BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA., FOR R.1 TO R.3; SRI. M. MUNIGANGAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R.4 (ABSENT)] THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN PTCL/54/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, 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 - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010546012025 NC: 2026:KHC:39528 WP No. 25137 of 2025 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 1951. He belonged to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. There was a condition that the land should not be alienated forever. However, in violation of the conditions of grant, the original grantee sold the land in the year 1969. Presently the petitioner is the owner of the land. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act') came into force on 01.01.1979. An application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed by respondent no.4 for the first time in the year 2008. The said application was allowed by respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner, who has ordered for restoration of the land in favour of the original grantee. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of respondent no.3 has been dismissed by respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, an application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been allowed in spite of an - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010546012025 NC: 2026:KHC:39528 WP No. 25137 of 2025 unreasonable delay of 39 years since the date of the sale and around 29 years from the date of the Act coming into force and the said delay is unexplained. On the said ground, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 is absent. 4. Learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3 justify the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The only question that arises for consideration is whether there is any inordinate and unreasonable delay in making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 6. 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 have held that if there is an unreasonable delay in challenging the sale, it becomes fatal to an application made under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010546012025 NC: 2026:KHC:39528 WP No. 25137 of 2025 7. Admittedly, in the instant case, there is a delay of 29 years in challenging the sale from the date of PTCL Act coming into force. The said delay is not explained and under the given facts and circumstances of the case, it has to be held as unreasonable. 8. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned order bearing No.LND.SC.ST/ 44/2008-09 dated 14.02.2025 passed by respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-D to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (iii) The impugned order bearing No.PTCL/54/2025 dated 28.07.2025 passed by respondent no.2- Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-E to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (iv) The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act filed by respondent no.4 before respondent no.3 is dismissed. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56