- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010627252024 NC: 2026:KHC:40455 WP No. 29178 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 29178 OF 2024 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHINNAPPA REDDY, S/O LATE THIMMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 2. SRI. SHIVARAMA REDDY, S/O LATE THIMMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 3. SRI. RAMAKRISHNAIAH, S/O LATE THIMMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 4. SRI. PRAKASH, S/O LATE THIMMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 4 ARE ALL NOW R/AT THIGALA CHOWDADENAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 125. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVA PRASAD E., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010627252024 NC: 2026:KHC:40455 WP No. 29178 of 2024 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. 4. SRI. GURUSHANTHAPPA, S/O LATE THIPPA ALIAS THIPPAIAH, AGED ABOTU 46 YEARS, R/AT DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, SARJAPURA VILLAGE AND HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRIT-562 125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. A.HANUMANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.10.2024, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PASSED IN CASE NO.PTCL.44/2019, BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AUTHORITY 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: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010627252024 NC: 2026:KHC:40455 WP No. 29178 of 2024 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 1939. He belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. Respondent no.4 is said to be the present legal representative of the original grantee. The land was sold for the first time in the year 1946. Thereafter, there have been several transfers and presently, petitioners are said to be owners of the property concerned. In the year 2014, for the first time, respondent no.4 herein made an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act') to respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner, who on the ground that no grant records were produced has dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent no.4 preferred an appeal before respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner, who has concluded that the land concerned is a granted land and that it contained a clause that it should not be alienated forever and on the said ground he has allowed the appeal and has ordered - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010627252024 NC: 2026:KHC:40455 WP No. 29178 of 2024 for resumption and restoration of the land concerned in favour of legal representatives of original grantee. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred the writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioners is that, the land concerned is not a granted land and no grant certificate has been produced by respondent no.4. It is submitted even otherwise the challenge to the sale has been made after an unreasonable and inordinate delay and the impugned order is passed without taking this fact into consideration. 3. Per contra, both Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3 as well as counsel for respondent no.4 justify the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. It is contended by them that perusal of the revenue records reveals that the land indeed was a granted land. 4. Even presuming that the land concerned is a granted land, admittedly the land was sold in the year 1946 by the grantee. The PTCL Act came into force in the year 1979. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manchegowda and - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010627252024 NC: 2026:KHC:40455 WP No. 29178 of 2024 Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (1984) 3 SCC 301, if the purchaser has perfected his title by way of prescription or otherwise before the PTCL Act coming into force, then in that event even if the land is sold in violation of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act, the grantee is not entitled to the relief. 5. In the present case, the land has been sold in the year 1946 and the PTCL Act came into force in the year 1979 and there has been a lapse of around 33 years in between, that time which is sufficient for the purchaser to claim right over the same by way of adverse possession or prescription as contemplated in Manchegowda's case cited supra. Further, there has been an unreasonable and inordinate delay on the part of the legal representative of the original grantee in making an application before the Assistant Commissioner which is in the year 2014 and there is a lapse of around 35 years from the date of PTCL Act coming into force, which has to be considered as an unreasonable delay. The 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 - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010627252024 NC: 2026:KHC:40455 WP No. 29178 of 2024 Others in W.P.No.3597/2018 have held an unreasonable delay in making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act could be fatal to it. 6. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition stands allowed; (ii) The impugned order dated 04.10.2024 passed by respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner bearing no.¦n¹J¯ï 44/2019 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition is hereby set aside. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40