- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010130402025 NC: 2026:KHC:38934 WP No. 6716 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 6716 OF 2025 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KANUMAKKA DIED BY L.R'S SRI. G.M. JAGANATH S/O MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE I.MANGALA HOBLI HIRIYURU TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-572 143. 2. SRI. G.M. RANGASWAMY DIED BY L.R'S SMT. B.KARIAMMA W/O LATE G.M. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 3. KUM. CHITRALEKHA D/O LATE G.M. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 4. SMT. G.M. MADHU @ MADHUSHREE S/O LATE G.M. RANGASWAMY Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010130402025 NC: 2026:KHC:38934 WP No. 6716 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 5. KUM. G.M. TEJASWINI D/O LATE G.M. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS NOs.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT HARISHCHANDRA GHAT COLONY KASABA HOBLI, HIRIYURU CITY AND TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRINIVASAIAH M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. KUNTA RANGAPPA @ RANGAPPA S/O HANUMAPPA DIED BY L.R'S SRI. RANGASWAMY S/O LATE KUNTA RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 2. SRI. JAYANNA S/O LATE KUNTA RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 3. SRI. THIPPESWAMY S/O LATE KUNTA RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 4. SRI. KANUMAIAH S/O LATE KUNTA RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010130402025 NC: 2026:KHC:38934 WP No. 6716 of 2025 NOs.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT KAMBADA HALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HIRIYURU TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501. 5. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT. 6. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, AGA FOR R5 AND R6) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN PTCL APPEAL NO.17/2022 DATED 04.12.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-A ON THE FILE OF RESPONDENT NO.6 TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.6 IN CASE NO.PTCL APPEAL NO.17/2022 DATED 04.12.2024 BY UPHELD THE ORDER OF RESPONDENT NO.5 VIDE NO.SC PTCL HYR- 9/2013-14 IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.56/2 DATED 26.04.2022 AND SY.NO.56/3 MEASURING 2 ACRES 20 GUNTAS EACH AS PER ANNEXURE-G BOTH ARE SITUATED AT KAMBADAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010130402025 NC: 2026:KHC:38934 WP No. 6716 of 2025 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 1961. He belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. After his demise, in the year 1964 his two sons executed a sale deed in favour of original grantee's sister namely Smt. Kanumakka for a valuable consideration which was more in the nature of a family arrangement. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the said Smt. Kanumakka. Respondent nos.1 to 4 are the legal representatives of one of the brothers of Smt. Kanumakka who had sold the land to her. Respondent nos.1 to 4 made 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') in the year 2013 before respondent no.5- Assistant Commissioner. Respondent no.5, on the ground that it was not a free grant and it was allotted in favour of - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010130402025 NC: 2026:KHC:38934 WP No. 6716 of 2025 the original grantee for an upset price also because there was an inordinate delay, dismissed the application. However, on an appeal filed by respondent nos.1 to 4, respondent no.6-Deputy Commissioner has allowed the appeal and has ordered for resumption and restoration of land in favour of respondent nos.1 to 4. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the land was not a free grant but was conveyed to the father of Kanumakka for an upset price which was equivalent to the then market value. It is also submitted that the transaction between Kanumakka and her brothers wherein her brothers sold the land in favour of Kanumakka was more of a family arrangement and it cannot be treated as a transfer for the purposes of PTCL Act. Even otherwise it is submitted that Section 5 application has to be made within a reasonable time and the same has not been done. It is also contended that legal heirs of the other brother who sold the land in - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010130402025 NC: 2026:KHC:38934 WP No. 6716 of 2025 favour of Kanumakka has not been made party to the proceedings. On the said grounds, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4 as well as learned AGA justify the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. It is contended by the respondent nos.1 to 4 that the sale was not for an upset price. It is also contended that even otherwise, the consideration was not of market value. It is further contended that once a sale deed is executed, it becomes a transfer for the purpose of Section 3(e) of PTCL Act and only if there is a partition amongst the members of the family or a testamentary disposition, then in that event it is not a transfer. On the said grounds, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010130402025 NC: 2026:KHC:38934 WP No. 6716 of 2025 5. Be that as it may, without going into the facts whether the grant was pursuant to an upset price or not and whether the transaction between Kanumakka and her relations amounts to a transfer or not for the purposes of PTCL Act, the grant was of the year 1961 and the sale was of the year 1964. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. Respondent nos.1 to 4 have made an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act for the first time in the year 2013. There is an inordinate delay of 34 years in challenging the sale from the date of the PTCL Act coming into force, and 49 years delay from the date of sale. The same is not explained. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the delay has to be considered unreasonable and by virtue of the ratio laid down by 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, the application under Section 5 of the - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010130402025 NC: 2026:KHC:38934 WP No. 6716 of 2025 PTCL Act is liable to be dismissed. Respondent no.5- Assistant Commissioner has rightly dismissed the application and respondent no.6-Deputy Commissioner committed an error in reversing the same. 6. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 04.12.2024 passed by respondent no.6 bearing no.¦n¹J¯ï-17/2022 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (ii) The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18