- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010642392024 NC: 2026:KHC:39171 WP No. 31949 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 31949 OF 2024 (SCST) BETWEEN: SRI. NOWSHAD AHAMMED KHAN, S/O KHADAR ALIKHAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O HANUMANAHALLI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 217. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION SECRETARIAT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010642392024 NC: 2026:KHC:39171 WP No. 31949 of 2024 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE - 577 217. 4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE - 577 217. 5. SRI. SEVA NAYKA, S/O RAJANAYKA, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/O G. KADADAKATTE VILLAGE, NYAMATHI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 217. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI.S.SUBHASH, ADVOCATE FOR R5 (ABSENT)) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R3 WHICH RESULTED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-A DATED 01.07.24 MADE IN PTCL/CR-3/23-24; QUASHING IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE- A DATED 01.07.24 MADE IN PTCL/CR-3/23-24 BY THE R3 AN 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 - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010642392024 NC: 2026:KHC:39171 WP No. 31949 of 2024 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 1952. He belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Community. There was a condition that the land should not be alienated forever in the said grant. However, he sold the land in the year 1984, which is in violation of both Section 4(1) as well as Section 4(2) of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('PTCL' Act). However, the said sale has been challenged by the legal representative of the original grantee only in the year 2022, after the lapse of 38 years. On the ground of delay, the 4th respondent-Assistant Commissioner has dismissed the application. However, the 3rd respondent- Deputy Commissioner, on an appeal filed by respondent No.5, has allowed the same and has ordered for resumption and restoration of the land in favour of the legal representative of the original grantee. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed by the present purchaser. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010642392024 NC: 2026:KHC:39171 WP No. 31949 of 2024 2. The case of the petitioner is that there has been an unreasonable delay in challenging the sale which becomes fatal to the case of respondent No.5 and inspite of it, the 3rd respondent has passed the impugned order which is erroneous. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 is absent. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate justifies the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The only question that arises for consideration is, Whether there has been an unreasonable delay in challenging the sale. 6. Admittedly, the sale was made in the year 1984 and it has been challenged by making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, only in the year 2022, after the lapse of 38 years. The said delay has not been explained. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the said delay has to be considered unreasonable. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010642392024 NC: 2026:KHC:39171 WP No. 31949 of 2024 OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER1 as well as the decision of this Court in the case of R. SURESH MOHAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P. No.3597/2018. Such unreasonable delay will become fatal to the case of the original grantee/its legal representatives of the grantee. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 01.07.2024 made in PTCL:CR-3:2023-24 by respondent No.3- Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure - A to the writ petition, is hereby set aside. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232