- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010641222024 NC: 2026:KHC:40145 WP No. 29900 of 2024 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. 29900 OF 2024 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI K AMARANARAYANSWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE KALAPPA, R/AT YANNANGURU VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISISONER CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010641222024 NC: 2026:KHC:40145 WP No. 29900 of 2024 CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101. 4. THE TAHASILDAR SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, SIDLAGHATTA - 562 102. 5. SRI. T. NARAYANSWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE THIMMAIAH, R/AT YANNANGURU VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. N.V.SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R5 [ABSENT]) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2022 PASSED IN CASE NO.PTCL(S)01/2018-19 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AT ANNEXURE-G AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2024 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN CASE NO.RA(SC/ST)/28/2022-23 AT ANNEXURE-L 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: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010641222024 NC: 2026:KHC:40145 WP No. 29900 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 1979. He belonged to 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. For the first time, the land was sold in the year 1997 after the said non-alienation period was over. An application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act') was filed by respondent no.5 in the year 2018 against the said sale. 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 petitioner against the said order of respondent no.3 has been dismissed by respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010641222024 NC: 2026:KHC:40145 WP No. 29900 of 2024 2. The case of the petitioner is that, an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been allowed inspite of an unreasonable delay of 21 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. In the course of the arguments learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, he has challenged the constitutional validity of the amendment made to Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2023. However, he submits that he does not press for the same. His submission is placed on record. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 is absent. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate justifies the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. 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. 7. 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 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010641222024 NC: 2026:KHC:40145 WP No. 29900 of 2024 Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.3597/2018 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. 8. Admittedly, in the instant case there is a delay of 21 years from the date of the sale. The said delay is not satisfactorily explained by respondent no.5 and under the given facts and circumstances of the case, it has to be held as unreasonable. 9. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 22.08.2022 passed by respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner bearing no.¦n¹J¯ï(²)1/2018-19 vide Annexure-G to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (ii) The impugned order dated 21.10.2024 passed by respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner bearing no.DgïJ/J¸ï¹.J¸ïn/28/2022-23 vide - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010641222024 NC: 2026:KHC:40145 WP No. 29900 of 2024 Annexure-L to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (iii) The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act filed by respondent no.5 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.: 36