- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010056692025 NC: 2026:KHC:41553 WP No. 3287 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.3287 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHANDRANAIK S/O SRI KRISHNANAIKA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/OF T.B. KAVAL VILLAGE SAKHARAYAPATTANA HOBLI KADURU TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DSITRICT-577 101. …PETITIONER [BY SRI. NAIK N.R., ADVOCATE (VC)] AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU SUB-DIVISION CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 101. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010056692025 NC: 2026:KHC:41553 WP No. 3287 of 2025 4. THE TAHSILDAR KADUR TLAUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 101. 5. SMT. NAGIBAI W/O LATE B K CHANDRANAIK AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 6. SRI SHEKARANAIK S/O LATE B.K. CHANDRANAIK AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.5 AND 6 ARE R/O. DESHANI, GOLLARAHATTI JAVAGAL HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201. 7. SMT. JYOTHIBAI D/O LATE B K CHANDRANAIK W/O MAHALINGA NAIK ALGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/OF HARIHARAPURA 'A' THANDA CHELUVANAHALLI POST BANAVARA HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201. 8. SRI SOMASHEKHARAPPA S/O SHIVALINGAPPA AGED: MAJOR RESIDENT OF CHIKKAJJI KATTIHALLI JAVAGAL HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA., FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. K. GURUDHATTA, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R6 & R7 [ABSENT]; R8: SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010056692025 NC: 2026:KHC:41553 WP No. 3287 of 2025 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN NO.PTL IN 5/2018-19 DATED 10.10.2024 BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF 3RD RESPONDENT IN NO.SC.ST.4/2008-09 DATED 21.11.2017 IN RESPECT OF THE LAND MEASURING 5 ACRES AT SY.NO.273 OF THANDREBORE KAVAL VILLAGE, SAKHARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, KADURU TALUK, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-B AND C, 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 favour of the original grantee in the year 1962. He belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. The grant was subject to a condition that the land should not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of grant. The land was sold in the year 1986 after the expiry of the non-alienation period, but without obtaining the prior permission of the Government as contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010056692025 NC: 2026:KHC:41553 WP No. 3287 of 2025 Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act'). Respondent nos.5 to 7 are the legal representatives 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 2008 by one Kandmya Naik (legal representative of the original grantee). Respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner allowed the application on the ground that Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act was violated. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order of Assistant Commissioner 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 the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been filed after an unreasonable delay of 22 years from the date of sale and the said delay has not been satisfactorily explained. On the said ground, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010056692025 NC: 2026:KHC:41553 WP No. 3287 of 2025 3. Learned counsel for respondent nos.5 to 7 is absent. 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 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 sale was effected in the year 1986. The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed only in the year 2008, after a lapse of 22 years from the date of sale. The said delay has not been satisfactorily - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010056692025 NC: 2026:KHC:41553 WP No. 3287 of 2025 explained by respondent nos.5 to 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the same has to be held as unreasonable. Respondent nos.2 and 3 have committed an error by passing the impugned orders. Accordingly, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 8. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned order dated 21.11.2017 bearing no.J¸ï¹.J¸ïn 04/2008-09 passed by respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-B to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (iii) The impugned order dated 10.10.2024 bearing no.¦nJ¯ï 5/2018-19 passed by respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010056692025 NC: 2026:KHC:41553 WP No. 3287 of 2025 vide Annexure-C to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (iv) The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act filed by one Kandmya Naik (legal representative of the original grantee) before respondent no.3 is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44