- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010414202021 NC: 2026:KHC:41517 WP No. 20136 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 20136 OF 2021 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. K.T.KENCHAPPA (DEAD BY HIS LRS) SMT BASAVALINGAMMA W/O LATE K.T.KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. SMT NILAMMA W/O LATE VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 3. SRI K CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE K T KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT HEGGERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA-577 501. 4. SMT JAYAPADMA @ PADMA W/O LATE CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010414202021 NC: 2026:KHC:41517 WP No. 20136 of 2021 R/AT TADAKALURU VILLAGE SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 5. SMT PUSHPALATHA W/O LATE REVANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT SOMERAHALLI GRAMA KASABA HOBLI HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA -577 501. 6. SMT JAYALAKSHMI W/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT PAGALABANDE GRAMA CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA-577501 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MURTHY K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA-577 501. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010414202021 NC: 2026:KHC:41517 WP No. 20136 of 2021 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION CHITRADURGA -577 501. 4. LINGAPPA (DEAD BY HIS LRS) SRI SHIVARUDRAPPA S/O LATE LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT YEARS R/AT NO.162, 2ND CROSS BEHIND GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL HIRIYUR CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; R4 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A, THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2021 IN CASE NO.SCPTL(A)17/2007-08 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2-THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN CASE NO.SCPTL:CLK:16/2004-05 DATED 08.12.2006 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: KAHC010414202021 NC: 2026:KHC:41517 WP No. 20136 of 2021 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 grant order contained no condition against alienation. However, a Government order then in force prohibited alienation for 20 years. The land was sold in the year 1963 in violation of the said prohibition. 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 no.4 is the legal representative 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 1997. Respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner allowed the application on the ground that Sections 4(1) and 4(2) of the PTCL Act were violated and ordered for resumption and restoration of the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. The appeal filed by the one Kenchappa against the said order of Assistant Commissioner has been - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010414202021 NC: 2026:KHC:41517 WP No. 20136 of 2021 dismissed by respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been filed after an unreasonable delay of 34 years from the date of sale and about 18 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. Respondent no.4 though served has remained unrepresented. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate justifies the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. 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. 6. 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 - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010414202021 NC: 2026:KHC:41517 WP No. 20136 of 2021 held that an unreasonable delay in challenging the sale becomes fatal to an application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 7. Admittedly, the sale was effected in the year 1963. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed only in the year 1997, after a lapse of 34 years from the date of sale and about 18 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 nos.2 and 3 have committed an error by passing the impugned orders. Accordingly, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 8. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned order dated 08.12.2006 bearing no.J¸ï¹¦nJ¯ï:¹J¯ïJPÉ:16:04-05 passed by respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner vide - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010414202021 NC: 2026:KHC:41517 WP No. 20136 of 2021 Annexure-B to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (iii) The impugned order dated 29.07.2021 bearing no.J¸ï¹¦nJ¯ï(J)-17/2007-08 passed by respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (iv) The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act filed by respondent no.4 before respondent no.3 is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32