- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010300892025 NC: 2026:KHC:36378 WP No. 15694 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 15694 OF 2025 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. R. MEENAKSHI, W/O M. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED 56 YEARS, 2. SMT. R. NAGAVENI, W/O H.M.CHANDREGOWDA, AGED 53 YEARS, 3. SMT. R. BHAGYAMMA, W/O PRABHAKAR H.S., AGED 43 YEARS, 4. SMT. R. ANITHA, W/O HARSHAVARDHANA H.M., AGED 41 YEARS, 5. SMT. R. SHRUTHI, W/O RAJENDRAKUMAR M, AGED 36 YEARS, ALL ARE DAUGHTERS OF LATE M. RAMAIAH, RESIDING AT ATTIBELE VILLAGE, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010300892025 NC: 2026:KHC:36378 WP No. 15694 of 2025 SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 129. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MS BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE - 561 203. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, HOSKOTE TALUK, HOSKOTE - 562 114. 5. SRI. MUNIYAPPA, S/O MUNISWAMAPPA, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010300892025 NC: 2026:KHC:36378 WP No. 15694 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, 6. SRI. CHINNAPPA, S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED 48 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.5 & 6 ARE RESIDING AT GULLAHALLI VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 129. 7. SRI. NARAYANAPPA, S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED 88 YEARS, ATTIBELE VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 129. 8. SMT. PARVATHAMMA, W/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA, AGED 74 YEARS, 9. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA, AGED 47 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.8 AND 9 ARE RESIDING AT VENKATESHWARA TENT ROAD, DEVASANDRA, K R PURAM, BANGALORE - 560 036. 10. SMT. R. NARAYANAMMA, W/O S.N.KODANDARAMA, - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010300892025 NC: 2026:KHC:36378 WP No. 15694 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT ATTIBELE VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 129. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.CHANDINI S., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; NOTICE TO R7 TO R10 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 19.06.2026; R5 AND R6 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 28/8/2023 IN LND/SC-ST (APPEAL) NO. 23/2017, PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ORDER DATED 19/7/2016 IN PTCL (S.R) (HO) 2/2009-10 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, RESPONDENT NO.3 HEREIN, PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE- A AND B AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010300892025 NC: 2026:KHC:36378 WP No. 15694 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The land, which is the subject matter of the writ petition, was granted in favour of respondent No.5 in the year 1968 and he sold the same in favour of the late father of the petitioners in the same year, violating the grant conditions. The original grantee was a person who belonged to a Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe community. 2. It was challenged for the first time by filing an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act') in the year 2009. The said application was allowed by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner. An appeal has been filed before respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner, who has dismissed the same. Aggrieved by it, the present writ petition is filed. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010300892025 NC: 2026:KHC:36378 WP No. 15694 of 2025 3. Admittedly, the challenge to the sale by filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been made after the lapse of around 41 years from the date of sale and 30 years from the date of PTCL Act coming into force. Which, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, has to be considered as unreasonable. 4. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 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, any unreasonable delay in making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act will have to be considered fatal to the same. The impugned orders have been passed without taking this aspect into consideration and hence are liable to be set aside. Hence, the following: - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010300892025 NC: 2026:KHC:36378 WP No. 15694 of 2025 ORDER i. The Writ Petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 28.08.2023 bearing No. J¯ïJ£ïr/J¸ï¹-J¸ï-n(C¦Ã®Ä)23/2017 passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure - A to the writ petition is hereby set aside. iii. The impugned order dated 19.07.2016 bearing No. ¦n¹J¯ï: J¸ï.Dgï(ºÉÆ)2/2009-10 passed by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure - B to the writ petition is hereby set aside. iv. The application filed by respondent No.5 in respect of the land which is the subject matter of the writ petition before respondent No.3- Assistant Commissioner, stands dismissed. v. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE HDK