- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010059642025 NC: 2026:KHC:38807 WP No. 2728 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.2728 OF 2025 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. MR. SHIVANANDA N G AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O LATE GANGAIAH RESIDING AT KALLUR VILLAGE, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 220. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAKSHMAMMA S B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT TUMAKURU - 560 057. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT TUMAKURU - 560 057. 3. THE TAHSILDAR TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU - 560 057. 4. MR. KUMBI NARASIMHAIAH Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010059642025 NC: 2026:KHC:38807 WP No. 2728 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, 5. SMT. KAMALAMMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS D/O KUMBI NARASIMHAIAH 6. SMT. CHANDRAMMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS D/O KUMBI NARASIMHAIAH 7. SMT. SATHYA BHAMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS D/O KUMBI NARASIMHAIAH 8. MR. LAKSHMIPATHI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O KUMBI NARASIMHAIAH 9. MR. NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE GANGAIAH 10. SMT. SHOBHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O LATE GANGAIAH RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 10 ARE RESIDENTS OF KALLUR VILLAGE KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 220. 11. MR. LAKSHMIKANTHA N.V. AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O LATE VENKATA SUBBALAH, 12. MR. HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS S/O LATE LAKKAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010059642025 NC: 2026:KHC:38807 WP No. 2728 of 2025 13. MR. A GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH 14. MR. CHIKKA LAKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O LATE LAKKAIAH, 15. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS W/O LATE GANGAIAH, 16. MR. LOKESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE GANGAIAH RESPONDENTS NO.11 TO 16 ARE RESIDENTS OF NIDUVALALU VILLAGE HEBBUR HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 120. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, AGA., FOR R.1 TO R.3; SRI. K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R.11 TO R.16; VIDE ORDER DATED 31.01.2025 NOTICE TO R.4 TO R.10 IS DISPENSED WITH.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 06.07.2022 BEARING CASE NO.PTCL.01/2020-21 AND FURTHER QUASH THE ANNEXURE-H PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 30.08.2024 BEARING CASE NO.PTCL-36/2022, ETC. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010059642025 NC: 2026:KHC:38807 WP No. 2728 of 2025 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 petitioner is the legal representative of the original grantee and he belonged to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Community. The land was granted in the year 1990 under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. (for short 'the KVOA Act'). 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 said land was sold in parts in the years 1999 and 2001 by the original grantee. On the ground that the said land was alienated within the non-alienation period, the petitioner, who is the legal representative of the original grantee, made 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") before the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner in the year 2020. The second - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010059642025 NC: 2026:KHC:38807 WP No. 2728 of 2025 respondent, dismissed the application on the ground that the land concerned was allotted under the KVOA Act and does not amount to "granted land". Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent - the Deputy Commissioner, who has confirmed the order of the second respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the land is a "granted land" for the purposes of the PTCL Act and the same has been sold in violation of the terms of the grant and without obtaining the necessary permission from the State and hence, the petitioner is entitled for resumption and restoration of the land and that respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 have committed an error in passing the impugned orders. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents as well as the learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, justified the impugned orders and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The questions that arises for consideration are:- - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010059642025 NC: 2026:KHC:38807 WP No. 2728 of 2025 i. Whether the granted land includes land granted under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961; and ii. Whether there has been an unreasonable delay on the part of the petitioner in challenging the same. 5. This Court in W.A.Nos.100858/2014 c/w.100859/2014, at paragraph Nos.11 and 12, has held as under:- "11. In the instant case, Section 5 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 recognizes the right of the holder of the village office for regrant of land resumed under Section 4. As already adverted to above, Section 4, while abolishing the village offices and extinguishing the rights attached and appertaining the said village office, has made such extinction and abolition, subject to the provisions of Section 5 which recognizes the right for re-grant of the land on condition of payment of certain charges. Enquiry is contemplated by the Assistant Commissioner who acts as a quasi judicial Authority. Thus, there is pre-existing right recognized under Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, particularly in Section 5, in favour of the holder of the village office to get re-grant of the land which was attached to the - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010059642025 NC: 2026:KHC:38807 WP No. 2728 of 2025 village office and this village office is a hereditary office, so also the rights attached to the said village office. 12. Under Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act, in the exclusionary clause, it is made clear that the lands relating to hereditary offices or rights are excluded from the ambit of the definition of the term ‘granted land’. This is evident from the words ‘other than that relating to hereditary offices or rights’ used in Section 3(1)(b). Therefore, as per the intention expressed by the Legislature, lands relating to hereditary offices or relating to hereditary rights are excluded from the definition of ‘granted land’." 6. Thus, the land granted under the KVOA Act amounts to recognition of the hereditary rights of a person over the property, which results in a grant and the said lands are not "granted land" for the purposes of Section 3(1) (b) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 and therefore, the provisions of the PTCL Act are not attracted. Even otherwise, there has been a lapse of 19 years from the date of the last sale by the original grantee in making necessary application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, challenging the said sale, - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010059642025 NC: 2026:KHC:38807 WP No. 2728 of 2025 which as per the judgment of this Court in R.Suresh Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.3597/2018 and also the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232, have to be considered inordinate and unreasonable. Under the given circumstances of the case, the same becomes fatal to the case of the petitioner. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not see any infirmity in the impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 and respondent No.1, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48