- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010042532025 NC: 2026:KHC:38802 WP No. 2054 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.2054 OF 2025 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. B.T. NAGRAJAIAH S/O NADUKERE THIMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE R/AT BADUVANAPALYA, N. HOSAHALLI POST, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMUKURU-572211. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.A. SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMUKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU. 3. THE ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER TUMUKURU DISTRICT, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010042532025 NC: 2026:KHC:38802 WP No. 2054 of 2025 TUMUKURU. 4. B.N. PALAKSHAIAH S/O NARASHIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT BADUVANPALYA N. HOSAHALLI POST, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMUKURU-572211. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA., FOR R.1 TO R.3; SRI. PRASANNA D.P., ADVOCATE FOR R.4.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.12.2024 (ANNEXURE-E) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN PTCL CASE NO.13/2023 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO INTERFERE OR DISTURB THE LAWFUL POSSESSION OF PETITIONER IN ANY MANNER, 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: KAHC010042532025 NC: 2026:KHC:38802 WP No. 2054 of 2025 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 1995. For the first time it was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2014 by filing an application under Section 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the PTCL Act'), after a lapse of 19 years from the date of sale. Respondent no.3- Assistant Commissioner has dismissed the said application on the ground of inordinate delay. Against the said order, respondent No.4 preferred an appeal and respondent no.2- Deputy Commissioner 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 petitioner is that challenge to the sale has been made belatedly after a lapse of 19 years from the date of sale. The delay has to be considered as unreasonable in the - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010042532025 NC: 2026:KHC:38802 WP No. 2054 of 2025 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, the petitioner prays that the impugned order passed by respondent no.2 be set aside. 3. The learned AGA 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 1995 and for the first time, the sale has been challenged by making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2014. There has been an unreasonable delay of 19 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 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010042532025 NC: 2026:KHC:38802 WP No. 2054 of 2025 of the PTCL Act is liable to be rejected. Under the said circumstances, the impugned order passed by respondent no.2 has to be set aside. 5. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 04.12.2024 bearing No.¦.n.¹.J¯ï-13/2023 passed by respondent no.2 (vide Annexure-E to the writ petition) is hereby set aside; (ii) The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46