- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010265752025 NC: 2026:KHC:42220 WP No. 12584 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.12584 OF 2025 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KAMAKSHAMMA W/O LATE PILLASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. SMT. MANJULA P D/O LATE PILLASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 3. SMT. PRAKSH P S/O LATE PILLASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 4. SMT. CHANDRAKALA, D/O LATE PILLASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 5. SRI. DEVARAJU P S/O LATE PILLASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT SUNNAGHATTA VILLAGE, KUNDAN HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560 081. …PETITIONERS Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010265752025 NC: 2026:KHC:42220 WP No. 12584 of 2025 (BY SRI. ASHOK SHESHAGIRI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETORY, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATE BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, BHERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560 081. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560 086. 4. THE TASHILDAR, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560 086. 5. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, KUNDANA CIRCLE, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560 051. 6. SRI. MUNIMUTHAPPA, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT SUNNAGHATTA VILLAGE, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010265752025 NC: 2026:KHC:42220 WP No. 12584 of 2025 KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560 051. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, AGA., FOR R.1 TO R.5; SRI. UMESH B.M., ADVOCATE FOR R.6 (ABSENT)] THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.08.2024 ONE PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE NO.LND/SC/ST(A)29/2019 ONE FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION, 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 1978 with a condition that the same should not be alienated for a period of 15 years. The original grantee belonged to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. As per Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ("the PTCL - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010265752025 NC: 2026:KHC:42220 WP No. 12584 of 2025 Act"), such granted land should not be alienated without obtaining the necessary permission from the Government. However, the legal representatives of the original grantee sold the land in the year 1994 without obtaining the required permission from the State. Presently, the petitioners are the owners of the property. Respondent No.6 is the legal heir of the original grantee. He has preferred an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act for the first time in the year 2013. The same has been allowed by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal before respondent No.2, who in turn has confirmed the order passed by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the impugned orders passed by respondent No.3 and respondent No.2 are passed without taking into consideration the inordinate delay on the part of respondent No.6 in making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. It is further noticed that the person, who has sold the property in favour of the petitioners herein, has challenged the sale by making an application under Section 5 of - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010265752025 NC: 2026:KHC:42220 WP No. 12584 of 2025 the PTCL Act. It is not his case that the sale was undervalued and he did not receive any valuable consideration. On the said grounds, it is prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act may be dismissed. 3. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 justifies the impugned orders and prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 is absent. 4. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the application filed by respondent No.6 under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been filed within a reasonable period or not. 5. Admittedly, the sale was made in the year 1994 and it has been challenged for the first time in the year 2013. There is a delay of 19 years in filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The said delay is not explained satisfactorily. Under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of 19 years has to be considered as unreasonable. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010265752025 NC: 2026:KHC:42220 WP No. 12584 of 2025 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, such an unreasonable delay is fatal to the case of the grantee and others making claim under him. The impugned orders have been passed without taking this proposition of law into consideration. 6. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is hereby allowed; ii. The impugned order dated 22.08.2024 bearing No.LND/SC/ST(A)29/2019 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition is hereby set aside; iii. The impugned order dated 03.03.2018 bearing No.PTCL/SR(DH)4/2013-14 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-'B' to the writ petition is hereby set aside; - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010265752025 NC: 2026:KHC:42220 WP No. 12584 of 2025 iv. The application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before respondent No.3 by respondent No.6 is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47