- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010575812024 NC: 2026:KHC:40144 WP No. 27079 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. 27079 OF 2024 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAKSHMIBAI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, W/O LATE BASAVA NAIK, 2. SHRI SANDEEP NAIK AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O LATE BASAVA NAIK, BOTH ARE R/O AREHALLI VILLAGE, KARIGANOORU POST, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHIDAMBARA G.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010575812024 NC: 2026:KHC:40144 WP No. 27079 of 2024 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE-577 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HONNALI SUB-DIVISION, HONNALI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 217. 4. SMT H DEVIBAI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/O B GANESHANAIKA, R/AT NO.869/4-25, CHIKKANAHALLI NEW EXTENSION, NEAR KARIYAMMA TEMPLE, NITTUVALLI, DAVANAGERE-577 001. 5. SHRI K HANUMANTHANAIK AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O KHUBYANAIK, R/O AREHALLI VILLAGE, KARIGANOORU POST, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. C.M. KEMPEGOWDA AND SRI.SUMANTH S., ADVOCATES FOR R4; R5 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT OR WRITS QUASHING THE ORDER DATED - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010575812024 NC: 2026:KHC:40144 WP No. 27079 of 2024 24.09.2024 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE NO.PTCL- CR-11:2022-23, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 10.11.2022 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN CASE NO. P.T.C.L/CR/04/2020-21, VIDE ANNEXURE-B 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: 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 1966. 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. The land was sold in the year 1996 after the said non-alienation period was over, however, without taking necessary permission from the State. Presently, petitioners are the owners of the land concerned. 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') - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010575812024 NC: 2026:KHC:40144 WP No. 27079 of 2024 was filed by the original grantee herself for the first time in the year 2020 against the said sale. The said application was allowed by respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of respondent no.3 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, an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been allowed inspite of an unreasonable delay of 24 years since the date of the first sale and the said delay is unexplained. On the said ground, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 3. Both learned counsel for respondent no.4 and learned AGA justify the impugned orders and pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Respondent no.5 though served has remained unrepresented. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010575812024 NC: 2026:KHC:40144 WP No. 27079 of 2024 5. 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. 6. 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 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. 7. Admittedly, in the instant case there is a delay of around 24 years since the date of the sale. The said delay is not explained and under the given facts and circumstances of the case, it has to be held as unreasonable. 8. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 10.11.2022 passed by respondent no.3 bearing - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010575812024 NC: 2026:KHC:40144 WP No. 27079 of 2024 no.¦.n.¹.J¯ï/¹Dgï/04/2020-21 vide Annexure-B to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (ii) The impugned order dated 24.09.2024 passed by respondent no.2 bearing no.¦n¹J¯ï-¹Dgï- 11/2022-23 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (iii) The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act filed before respondent no.3 is dismissed; (iv) The writ petition stands allowed accordingly; (v) The revenue entries in respect of the property which is the subject matter of the writ petition shall be restored to status quo ante as it was prior to passing of the order by respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32