- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010519852024 NC: 2026:KHC:40143 WP No. 24812 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. 24812 OF 2024 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SHANKAREGOWDA S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT LAKKIHALLI VILLAGE, BAGUR HOBLI, CHENNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116. 2. JAYAMMA W/O NAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT BALAGHATTA VILLAGE, BAGUR HOBLI, CHENNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116. 3. MOODLIGOWDA S/O LATE GIRIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 4. MANJUNATH L G S/O LATE GIRIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PETITIONER NOS.3 AND 4 ARE R/AT LAKKIHALLI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010519852024 NC: 2026:KHC:40143 WP No. 24812 of 2024 BAGUR HOBLI, CHENNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116. 5. KUMARSWAMY S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT LAKKIHALLI VILLAGE, BAGUR HOBLI, CHENNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116. 6. NANJEGOWDA @ SANNANNA S/O HANUMANTHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, LAKKIHALLI VILLAGE, BAGUR HOBLI, CHENNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN SUB-DIVISION - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010519852024 NC: 2026:KHC:40143 WP No. 24812 of 2024 HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201. 4. THE THASILDAR CHENNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201. 5. KALAMMA W/O KARIYAYYA, MAJOR, 6. RANGASWAMY S/O KARIYAYYA, MAJOR, RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6 ARE R/AT BALAGHATTA VILLAGE, BAGUR HOBLI, CHENNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116. 7. LAKSHMEGOWDA W/O THIMMEGOWDA, MAJOR, R/AT BALAGHATTA VILLAGE, BAGUR HOBLI, CHENNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K., AND SRI.PRATHAP KUMAR M.S., ADVOCATES FOR R5 AND R6; VIDE ORDER DATED 12.09.2024 NOTICE TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010519852024 NC: 2026:KHC:40143 WP No. 24812 of 2024 CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 23.07.2024 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING NO.PTCL.15/2021-22 (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-M) TO THE WRIT PETITION 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: 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 the year 1956 in favour of the original grantee. He belonged to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. For the first time, the land was sold in the year 1967. 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. For the first time, an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed in the year 2014 by respondent nos.5 and 6. The said application came to be dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground of inordinate and unreasonable - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010519852024 NC: 2026:KHC:40143 WP No. 24812 of 2024 delay. Aggrieved by the same, respondent nos.5 and 6 filed an appeal before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal and ordered for resumption and restoration of the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the purchasers. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the second respondent - the Deputy Commissioner has allowed the appeal in violation of 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 and has not considered the inordinate and unreasonable delay. On the said ground, it is prayed that the impugned order passed by the second respondent be set aside. 3. In the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, he has challenged the constitutional validity of the amendment made to Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2023. However, he submits that he does not press for the same. His submission is placed on record. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010519852024 NC: 2026:KHC:40143 WP No. 24812 of 2024 4. Per contra, the Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents justify the impugned order and pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The question that arises for consideration is whether there has been an inordinate and unreasonable delay on the part of the legal representatives of the original grantee in filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 6. Admittedly, the grant is of the year 1956. The first sale is of the year 1967. The PTCL Act came into force with effect from 01.01.1979 and the challenge is made for the first time in the year 2014. There has been a delay of 47 years after the first sale and 35 years after the PTCL Act coming into force in filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The said delay is unexplained. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the same has to be treated as unreasonable. As per the decision of 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 - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010519852024 NC: 2026:KHC:40143 WP No. 24812 of 2024 W.P.No.3597/2018, an inordinate and unreasonable delay in filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, becomes fatal to the case of the original grantee. 7. Hence, the following:- ORDER i. The writ petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 23.07.2024 bearing No.¦n¹J¯ï.15/2021-22 passed by respondent No.2 (vide Annexure-'M' to the writ petition) is hereby set aside. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29