- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010106142021 NC: 2026:KHC:39570 WP No. 10389 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.10389 OF 2021 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI JAYARAMA S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT BOMMANAHALLI (VI) BELLURU (HO) NAGAMANGALA (TQ) MANDYA DISTRICT-571448. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PARAMESWARAIAH D.C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAVEED S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, D R AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571401. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010106142021 NC: 2026:KHC:39570 WP No. 10389 of 2021 MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571434. 4. THE TAHSILDAR TAHSILDAR OFFICE NAGAMANGALA MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571 434. 5. SMT. SHOBA W/O RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 6. SRI HANUMANTHA S/O PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 7. SRI SHIVAKUMAR S/O PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, ALL THE RESPONDENT NOS.5-7 ARE R/AT BELLURU GRAMA BELLURU HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA-571 434. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA., FOR R.1 TO R.4; VIDE ORDER DATED 22.07.2025 NOTICE TO R.5 AND R.7 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; R.6 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN PTCL NO.03/2006-07 DATED 27.06.2015 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE NO.PTCL. 01/2017 DATED 29.08.2020 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-B, ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010106142021 NC: 2026:KHC:39570 WP No. 10389 of 2021 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 1964. The original grantee belonged to Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe community. There was a condition in the grant that the land should not be alienated for a period of 15 years. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 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 Government. However, without obtaining the necessary permission from the State, the original grantee sold the land in the year 1986. Presently, the petitioner is the owner of the property. The sale made in the year 1986 was challenged for the first time in the year 2006 by the respondent Nos.6 and 7 - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010106142021 NC: 2026:KHC:39570 WP No. 10389 of 2021 by filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The same has been allowed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner and his order has been confirmed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner on appeal. 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 No.3 and respondent No.2 are liable to be set aside as they have been passed without taking into consideration the inordinate delay on the part of respondent Nos.6 and 7 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. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 justifies the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the application filed by respondent No.6 and 7 under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been filed within a reasonable period or not. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010106142021 NC: 2026:KHC:39570 WP No. 10389 of 2021 5. Admittedly, the sale was made in the year 1986 and it has been challenged for the first time in the year 2006. There is a delay of 20 years in filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act from the date of such sale. The said delay is not explained satisfactorily. Under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of 20 years has to be considered as unreasonable. 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, 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. Hence, the following:- ORDER i. The writ petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 27.06.2015 bearing No.¦.n.¹.J¯ï; 03/2006-07 passed by respondent No.3 - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010106142021 NC: 2026:KHC:39570 WP No. 10389 of 2021 (vide Annexure-'A' to the writ petition) is hereby set aside. iii. The impugned order dated 29.08.2020 bearing No.¦.n.¹.J¯ï.01/2017 passed by respondent No.2 (vide Annexure-'B' to the writ petition) is hereby set aside. iv. The application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before respondent No.3 by respondent No.6 and 7 is hereby dismissed. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16