- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010032832024 NC: 2026:KHC:39527 WP No. 1772 of 2024 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.1772 OF 2024 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PREMA W/O. M.C. NARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. UDOOGERE VILLAGE, B. DURGA HOBLI, HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISON, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 3. GURULINGAPPA S/O LATE DHODDIGANAL NAGAPPA @ NAGAPPA, AGED MAJOR, R/O. BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE, HIREGUNTANURU HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 520. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, AGA., FOR R.1 AND R.2; R.3: SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.) Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010032832024 NC: 2026:KHC:39527 WP No. 1772 of 2024 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NO.PTCL:20/2022 DATED 06.12.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION, ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 the year 1957 in favour of the original grantee, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe community. There was a condition in the grant that the land should not be alienated for a period of ten years. However, 1 acre of land was sold for the first time in the year 1992 and 1 acre of land was sold in the year 1993 out of 4 acres of the land granted without obtaining prior permission from the Government. Presently, the petitioner is the owner of the property. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, "the PTCL Act") came into force with effect from 01.01.1979. For the first time, an application under Section 5 - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010032832024 NC: 2026:KHC:39527 WP No. 1772 of 2024 of the PTCL Act was filed in the year 2017 by respondent no.3. The said application came to be dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground of inordinate delay. Aggrieved by the same, the legal representative of the original grantee filed an appeal before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal and ordered for resumption and restoration of the land in favour of the legal representative of the original grantee. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the legal representative of the purchaser. 2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.1- Deputy Commissioner has allowed the appeal in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 and has not considered the inordinate delay in filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. On the said ground, it is prayed that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 be set aside. 3. Respondent No.3, though served with the notice, has remained unrepresented. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010032832024 NC: 2026:KHC:39527 WP No. 1772 of 2024 4. Per contra, the learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 sought to justify the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The question that arises for consideration is whether there has been an inordinate and unreasonable delay on the part of the legal representative of the original grantee in filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 6. Admittedly, the grant is of the year 1957. The said portions of the land were sold in the years 1992 and 1993. The PTCL Act came into force with effect from 01.01.1979 and the challenge is made for the first time in the year 2017. There has been a delay of 23 years in filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, since the second sale was executed. The said delay is unexplained. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the same has to be treated as unreasonable. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 as well as the decision of this Court in R.Suresh Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.3597/2018, an - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010032832024 NC: 2026:KHC:39527 WP No. 1772 of 2024 unreasonable delay in filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, becomes fatal to the case of the legal heirs of the original grantee. 7. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is hereby allowed; ii. The impugned order dated 06.12.2023 bearing No.¦n¹J¯ï:20/2022 passed by respondent No.1 (vide Annexure-'D' to the writ petition) is hereby set aside. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63