- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010076122024 NC: 2026:KHC:44240 WP No. 3694 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.3694 OF 2024 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI A. RAVI S/O LATE ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT JALAHALLI VILLAGE, YASHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560013. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. MONICA PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, 3RD GATE, 5TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560009. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010076122024 NC: 2026:KHC:44240 WP No. 3694 of 2024 4. 4(a) 4(b) 4(c) 4(d) SRI. THAMMAIAH S/O LATE MUNIANJINI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT MARANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU-560063. LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF RESPONDENT NO.4 SMT. RANGAMMA S/O LATE THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, SMT. NAGARATHNA D/O. LATE THAMMAIAH W/O. MANIRAJU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.52 MARANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE CHIKKAJALA, BENGALURU-562157. SMT. N. SOWMYA M.T. D/O. LATE THAMMAIAH W/O. SUNILKUMAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT VTC CHIKKANNANAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE ARADESHANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. SRI. RANGASWAMY S/O. LATE THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESPONDENT 4(a) AND 4(d) R/AT MARANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU-560063. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010076122024 NC: 2026:KHC:44240 WP No. 3694 of 2024 5. SRI. NAGARAJA RAO S/O LATE RAMOJI RAO, AGED: MAJOR, R/AT NO.443, 12TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BENGALURU-560084. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA., FOR R.1 TO R.3; SRI. BHARATH M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R.4[A TO D]; VIDE ORDER DATED 28.10.2025 NOTICE TO R.5 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED JANUARY 10, 2024 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN KSCST (A) NO.36/2019 UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE KARNATAKA SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) ACT, 1978 (ANNEXURE-A); AND CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED JULY 11, 2016 IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.K.SC.ST:38/2013-14 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU (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: - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010076122024 NC: 2026:KHC:44240 WP No. 3694 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 1954. He belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. The land was sold in the year 1970. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act') came into force on 01.01.1979. Respondent nos.4(a to d) are the legal representatives of the original grantee. For the first time, an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act challenging the sale was filed in the year 2013. Respondent no.3- Assistant Commissioner rejected the application. The appeal filed by the respondent no.4 against the said order of Assistant Commissioner has been allowed by respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010076122024 NC: 2026:KHC:44240 WP No. 3694 of 2024 2. The case of the petitioner is that, an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been filed after an unreasonable delay of 43 years from the date of sale and 34 years from the date on which the PTCL Act came into force and the said delay has not been satisfactorily explained. On the said ground, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 3. Learned counsel for respondent no.4(a to d) as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate justify the impugned order and pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The only question that arises for consideration is whether there is any inordinate and unreasonable delay in filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 5. 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 an unreasonable delay - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010076122024 NC: 2026:KHC:44240 WP No. 3694 of 2024 in challenging the sale becomes fatal to an application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 6. Admittedly, the sale was effected in the year 1970. The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed only in the year 2013, after a lapse of 43 years from the date of sale and 34 years from the date on which the PTCL Act came into force. The said delay has not been satisfactorily explained by respondent no.4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the same has to be held as unreasonable. Respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner has rightly dismissed the application, however, respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner has committed an error by passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 7. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010076122024 NC: 2026:KHC:44240 WP No. 3694 of 2024 (ii) The impugned order dated 10.01.2024 bearing No.KSCST(A)36/2019 passed by respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (iii) Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37