- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010188372024 NC: 2026:KHC:43873 WP No. 10064 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 10064 OF 2024 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NEMANI NAGESHWARA RAO S/O LATE VEERA RAJU AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS BASAVAPATNA HOBLI CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGARAJAPPA A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GANGUBHAI W/O LATE KRISHNA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 2. SMT. THANUJABHAI D/O LATE KRISHNA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 3. SRI. MALLESHWARA RAO S/O KALPIKOLLI SWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT KABBALA VILLAGE DODDAGHATTA POST Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010188372024 NC: 2026:KHC:43873 WP No. 10064 of 2024 BASAVAPATNA HOBLI CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 544. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION DAVANAGERE DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001. 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R4 AND R5; R1 AND R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 17.08.2026 NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2024 IN NO.KPTCL:CR-15:2021-22 AT ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 BY RESTORING THE ORDERS OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN PTCL.CR.36:06-07 DATED 26.08.2009 AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010188372024 NC: 2026:KHC:43873 WP No. 10064 of 2024 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 favour of the original grantee in the year 1968. He belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. For the first time, the land was sold in the year 1977. Petitioner purchased the property concerned in the year 1983. 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. Respondent nos.1 and 2 are the legal representative of the original grantee. For the first time, an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act challenging the sale was filed in the year 1998. Respondent no.4-Assistant Commissioner has dismissed the said application, respondent no.5-Deputy Commissioner set aside the said order and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner. After remand, the Assistant Commissioner again rejected the application. The Deputy Commissioner on appeal, partly allowed the matter and again remanded the matter for - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010188372024 NC: 2026:KHC:43873 WP No. 10064 of 2024 fresh consideration. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been filed after an unreasonable delay of 21 years from the date of first sale and about 19 years from the date on which the PTCL Act came into force and the said delay has not been satisfactorily explained. On the said ground, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 3. Respondent nos.1 and 2 though served have remained unrepresented. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate justifies 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 filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 6. 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 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010188372024 NC: 2026:KHC:43873 WP No. 10064 of 2024 v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.3597/2018, have held that an unreasonable delay in challenging the sale becomes fatal to an application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 7. Admittedly, the first sale was effected in the year 1977. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed only in the year 1998, after a lapse of 21 years from the date of first sale and about 19 years from the date on which the PTCL Act came into force. The said delay has not been satisfactorily explained by respondent nos.1 and 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the same has to be held as unreasonable. Respondent no.4-Assistant Commissioner has rightly dismissed the application, however, respondent no.5-Deputy Commissioner has committed an error by passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010188372024 NC: 2026:KHC:43873 WP No. 10064 of 2024 (ii) The impugned order dated 15.02.2024 bearing no.¦n¹J¯ï:¹Dgï-15:2021-22 passed by respondent no.5-Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-G to the writ petition is hereby set aside. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12