- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010368172024 NC: 2026:KHC:42815 WP No. 17666 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 17666 OF 2024 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: SRI B G SHANKARAPPA S/O GURUBASAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT V BANAHATTI VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN - 577 215 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENUGOPAL M.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, HARIHARA ROAD, KARUR DAVANAGERE - 577 006 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HONNALLI SUB DIVISION, HONNALLI - 577 217 Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010368172024 NC: 2026:KHC:42815 WP No. 17666 of 2024 4. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT V BANNIHATTI VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN - 577 215 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. MADHUKAR NADIG, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 06/06/2024 IN CASE NO. PTCL CR/12/2022-23 VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER The land which is the subject matter of the writ petition was granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1974, who is the father of respondent No.4 herein. The original grantee belonged to the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe community. There was a condition that the land should not be alienated for a period of 15 years. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010368172024 NC: 2026:KHC:42815 WP No. 17666 of 2024 Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, "the PTCL Act") came into force with effect from 01.01.1979. As per Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, such granted land should not be alienated without obtaining the necessary permission from the State Government. However, without obtaining the necessary permission from the State, the original grantee along with his children sold the land in the year 1992 in favour of the petitioner herein. Presently, the petitioner is the owner of the property. The sale made in the year 1992 was challenged for the first time in the year 2020 by the son of the original grantee (respondent No.4 herein) by filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The same has been allowed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner and has ordered for resumption and restoration of the land in favour of the legal representative of the original grantee. The appeal preferred by the petitioner is dismissed by respondent No.2 - the Deputy - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010368172024 NC: 2026:KHC:42815 WP No. 17666 of 2024 Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 are passed without taking into consideration the inordinate delay on the part of respondent No.4 in making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. On the said ground, it is prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. 3. In the course of the arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he does not press upon the prayer for quashing the amendment carried out to Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 justify the impugned orders and pray for dismissal of the writ petition. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010368172024 NC: 2026:KHC:42815 WP No. 17666 of 2024 5. The only question that arises for consideration is, whether there has been any unreasonable delay on the part of respondent No.4 in preferring the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 6. Admittedly, the sale was made in the year 1992 and it has been challenged for the first time in the year 2020. There is a delay of 28 years in filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The said delay has not been explained satisfactorily. Under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of 28 years has to be considered as unreasonable. 7. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti 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,, has held that any unreasonable delay in making the application under Section 5 of the - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010368172024 NC: 2026:KHC:42815 WP No. 17666 of 2024 PTCL Act becomes fatal to the case of the original grantee / his legal heirs. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 16.11.2022 bearing Case No. ...ಎ/.ಆ/02/2021-22 passed by respondent No.3 - the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure - H to the writ petition is hereby set aside. iii. The impugned order dated 06.06.2024 bearing Case No. ...ಎ/.ಆ/12/2022-23 passed by respondent No.2 - the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure - L to the writ petition is hereby set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010368172024 NC: 2026:KHC:42815 WP No. 17666 of 2024 iv. The application filed by the legal representative of the original grantee (respondent No.4) under Section 5 of the PTCL Act is hereby dismissed. v. The revenue entries in respect of the land, which is the subject matter of the writ petition, shall be restored and status quo ante in the name of the person as it existed before passing of the impugned order by respondent No.3 - the Assistant Commissioner. vi. The prayer pertaining to challenge to the amendment to Section 5 of the PTCL Act by inserting clause (c) and (d) to subsection 1 of Section 5 by amendment Act 2023 is hereby dismissed as not pressed. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40