- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010086432016 NC: 2026:KHC:40153 WP No. 36872 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 36872 OF 2016 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. 1(a) SRI. K.T. RANGAPPA S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS SINCE DECEASED BY LRs SRINIVASA S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT S T COLONY KAKNOORU VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577 552. 2. SRI. SHANTHAPPA S/O K.T. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT KAKNOORU VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010086432016 NC: 2026:KHC:40153 WP No. 36872 of 2016 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANGERE SUB-DIVISION DAVANAGERE DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 4. THASILDAR CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 5. SRI. HALLPPA S/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT MAJOR KAKNOORU VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT. 6. SRI A.K.HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE KARIYAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010086432016 NC: 2026:KHC:40153 WP No. 36872 of 2016 AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 7. MANJAPPA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 8. KUMARA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT KAKNOORU VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; R5 TO R8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.PTCL 09/2010-11, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DATED 25.09.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-A 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 CNR: KAHC010086432016 NC: 2026:KHC:40153 WP No. 36872 of 2016 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 1977. He belonged to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. There was a non-alienation clause that the land should not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of grant. The land was sold by way of two sale deeds in the year 1996 after the said non-alienation period was over. 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 one Halappa (legal representative of original grantee) for the first time in the year 2010. The said application was allowed by respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the land was alienated without obtaining the prior permission from the Government as contemplated under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of respondent no.3 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010086432016 NC: 2026:KHC:40153 WP No. 36872 of 2016 has been dismissed by respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioners is that, the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been allowed inspite of an unreasonable delay of 14 years from the date of the sale and the said delay is unexplained. On the said ground, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 3. Respondent nos.5 to 8 though served have remained absent. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4 justifies the impugned orders and pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. 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. 5. 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 - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010086432016 NC: 2026:KHC:40153 WP No. 36872 of 2016 have held that if there is an unreasonable delay in challenging the sale, it becomes fatal to the application made under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 6. Admittedly, in the instant case there is a delay of around 14 years from the date of sale. The said delay is not explained and under the given facts and circumstances of the case, it has to be held as unreasonable. 7. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 25.09.2013 passed by respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner bearing no.¦n¹J¯ï/9/10-11 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (ii) The impugned order dated 29.06.2015 passed by respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner bearing no.¦n¹J¯ï/¹Dgï-20/2013-14 vide Annexure-B to the writ petition is hereby set aside; - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010086432016 NC: 2026:KHC:40153 WP No. 36872 of 2016 (iii) The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act filed by one Halappa (legal representative of original grantee) before respondent no.3 is hereby dismissed; (iv) The writ petition stands allowed accordingly; Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20