- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010586682024 NC: 2026:KHC:40159 WP No. 27487 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.27487 OF 2024 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT CHANDENAHALLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-562 130. 2. SRI RAMESH S/O CHIKKANARASHIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 3. SRI GANESH S/O CHICKKANARASHIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 4. SRI ASHOKA S/O CHICKKANARASHIMHAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 4 ARE R/AT CHANDENAHALLI VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI T ALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 135. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010586682024 NC: 2026:KHC:40159 WP No. 27487 of 2024 AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BEHIND KANDHYA BHAVAN K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION 2ND FLOOR, KANDHAYA BHAVAN K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009. 3. SMT. PREMAKUMARI W/O. LATE CHANDRAKANTHAPPA AGED: MAJOR R/AT NO.2094 MUNESHWARASWAMY NILAYA VIJAYAPURA TOWN AND POST DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 135. 4. SMT. NANAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 5. SRI MANJUNATH S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT KOMMASANDRA, VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562135. …RESPONDENTS - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010586682024 NC: 2026:KHC:40159 WP No. 27487 of 2024 (BY SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, AGA., FOR R.1 AND R.2; MS. BRUNDHA G., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T.R. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R.3 TO R.5.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A ORDER DATED 29.08.2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN LND/SC/ST(APPEAL)/43/ 2017-DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY PETITIONER AND QUASH ANNEXURE-B ORDER DATED 30.01.2017 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN PTCL/SR(DH)22/2012-13- DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF OLD SY.NO.68, NEW SY.NO.168 MEASURING 2 ACRES OF LAND, SITUATED AT RANGANATHAPURA VILLAGE, VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, AND BY ALLOWING THE PETITION, ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010586682024 NC: 2026:KHC:40159 WP No. 27487 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners are said to be the legal representatives of the original grantee. It is the claim of the petitioners that the land was granted to the original grantee in the year 1939. That the grantee sold the land in the year 1963. The grantee once again repurchased the land in the year 1967 and in the same year, he once again sold the land. The purchaser who purchased the land in the year 1967 from the original grantee, sold the same in favour of Late Muniyappa in the year 1980. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the legal representatives of the said Muniyappa. The petitioners filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2012 under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short "the PTCL Act"). The Assistant Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the sale was made after the expiry of the non-alienation period of ten years and hence, rejected the application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, who has dismissed the same. Against the said orders, the present writ petition is filed. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010586682024 NC: 2026:KHC:40159 WP No. 27487 of 2024 2. The case of the petitioners is that the non-alienation period was not for a period of ten years, but it was for the lifetime and the alienation was in contravention of the said provision and hence, the present writ petition is required to be allowed. 3. Per contra, the learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5 together submit that the non-alienation period is only for a period of ten years. The copy of the grant certificate produced by the petitioners has been overwritten and concocted so as to show that the non-alienation period was for lifetime of the grantee. This submission is made by learned AGA upon verification of the documents and on the basis of the instruction from the concerned authorities. Even otherwise, it is submitted that there has been an unreasonable and inordinate delay of 44 years from the date of sale and 33 years from the date on which the PTCL Act came into force in challenging the sale. 4. A copy of the grant certificate produced by the petitioners clearly shows that the non-alienation period is only for ten - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010586682024 NC: 2026:KHC:40159 WP No. 27487 of 2024 years and not in perpetuity. The words "ten years" has been struck off and overwritten, in ink, with the words "for life". This is unacceptable. Further, the learned AGA upon instructions and after verification of the documents, has categorically submitted that the non-alienation period is ten years. The same finding has been recorded in the order of the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner, which has been upheld by the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner. Under the said circumstances, one has to consider that the non-alienation period in the instant case was ten years. The land was sold for the first time in the year 1963, after the expiry of the non-alienation period. Thereafter, the grantee himself purchased the land in the year 1967. If the non- alienation period was for the lifetime of the grantee, he would have initiated proceedings against the purchaser under the law that was prevalent then, rather than repurchasing the same in the year 1967. Again he has sold it in the year 1967. Further, taking into consideration the first date of alienation being of the year 1963 and that the PTCL Act came into force in the year 1979, there was a lapse of 16 years from the date of the first - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010586682024 NC: 2026:KHC:40159 WP No. 27487 of 2024 sale and the Act coming into force. Under the circumstances, by right of prescription, the purchaser should be considered as having perfected title. When the grantee purchased the land in the year 1967, he will be claiming his title under his predecessor-in-title and not by virtue of the original grantee. Even otherwise, there is an unreasonable and inordinate delay of 33 years in filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act since the Act coming into force. The said delay is unexplained and it is fatal to the case of the petitioners. 5. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not see any merit in the writ of petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9