- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35200 WP No. 7320 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 7320 OF 2021 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: S K RAJASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR TUMKUR FORGINGS AND ALLIED INDUSTRY (PVT.) LTD NO.1856, I CROSS, SOMESHWARAPURAM TUMAKURU - 572 102. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHRUTHI S.P., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT TUMAKURU 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU 3. SEEBANARASAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35200 WP No. 7320 of 2021 W/O LATE RANGAIAH 4. R MANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE RANGAIAH 5. M R SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O LATE RANGAIAH RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF MALLASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R 1 AND R2 R3, R4 AND R5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.07.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT N DISPUTE NO.PTCL/15/2013-14 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35200 WP No. 7320 of 2021 ORAL ORDER The land which is the subject matter of the writ petition was granted in favour of the forefather of respondent Nos.3 to 5, as he belonged to the Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes Community in the year 1978. Thereafter, the original grantee himself got the land converted in the year 1982 for non-agricultural purposes and sold the same in favour of the petitioner - Company in the year 1982 itself. However, in the year 1990 he initiated proceedings before respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner under the Provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act'), for resumption and restoration of the land. But he withdrew the same and the following order was passed by respondent No.2: " ಆೇಶ ಈ ೕ ೆ ಚ ರುವ ಾರಣಗಂದ ಾಗೂ ಅಾರರ ಅೇೆಯಂೆ !ಾಂಕ 23-8-90ರ ಅಯ ಬ$ೆ$ೆ ಮುಂ ನ ಕ'ಮವನು( ೈ*ಡ ಾ,ರುೆ- ಎಂಬುಾ, ಆೇ/ ರುೆ-. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35200 WP No. 7320 of 2021 ಈ ಅೇಶವನು( 0ೆರಳಚು2$ಾರ3$ೆ ೇ 0ೆರಳಚು2 4ಾ5 , 'ಓ , 8 9, !ಾಂಕ 3/3/92 ರಂದು ಬ:ರಂಗ !ಾ;<ಾಲಯದ>? @ೂೕAಸ ಾCತು. ಉಪGHಾ$ಾIಾ3 ತುಮಕೂರು ಉಪGHಾಗ" 2. Subsequently, respondent Nos.3 to 5 have preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner against the order of respondent No.2, which was dismissed at the behest of the original grantee himself. The appeal was filed in the year 2013-14. The said appeal has been allowed and the land has been ordered to be resumed and restored in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Admittedly, the land was granted in the year 1978. It was got converted for non-agricultural purposes in the year 1982 for the benefit of the grantee himself and was transferred in favour of the petitioner - Company in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35200 WP No. 7320 of 2021 which the original grantee was also a Director and a Shareholder. Thereafter, for the reason best known to him, though he was enjoying the fruits of the property, still, the original grantee challenged the same by making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 1990. But the same was withdrawn by him and the proceedings before respondent No.2 was dropped as withdrawn. Under the said circumstances, the question of challenging the sale before respondent No.1 by filing an appeal under Section 5A of the PTCL Act by respondent Nos.3 to 5 does not arise and respondent No.1 ought not to have entertained the appeal. Even otherwise, the appeal has been filed after an inordinate delay of 23 years, which has not been explained. 4. For the reasons that the land was converted for non residential purposes by the grantee himself, that he transferred the land in favour of the petitioner - Company for his own benefit and that the grantee himself has withdrawn the proceedings initiated before the Assistant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35200 WP No. 7320 of 2021 Commissioner and the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner has been preferred after a lapse of 23 years, the Writ Petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 03.07.2017 bearing No.JK ಎL.15/2013-14 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-D to the writ petition, is hereby set aside. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35