- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471762026 NC: 2026:KHC:41937 WP No. 21063 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 21063 OF 2026 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. R. FAYAZ S/O RASOOL SAB AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 2. SMT. GULNAZ BEGUM W/O R. FAYAZ AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 3. MOHAMMAD ASIF S/O R. FAYAZ AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS THE PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NO.57/3-6, 7TH CROSS 1ST MAIN, VIRAT NAGAR BOMMANAHALLI BANGALORE-560 068 4. VAZIR KHAN S/O HYDER KHAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 5. SMT. PARVEEN TAJ W/O VAZIR KHAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 6. SRI. FAIROZ KHAN S/O VAZIR KHAN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471762026 NC: 2026:KHC:41937 WP No. 21063 of 2026 THE PETITIONER NOS.4 TO 6 ARE R/AT NO.184, 5TH CROSS NEAR GOWSHALAVARA MADARASA NGR LAYOUT, ROOPENA AGRAHARA BOMMANAHALI, BANGALORE-560 068 7. SRI. JAVEED PASHA S/O CHAND PASHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 8. SMT. NOUFEENA H.K W/O JAVEED PASHA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS THE PETITIONER NOS.7 AND 8 ARE R/AT NO.411, 4TH FLOOR VANDANA SAI NIVAS, AREKERE SAI BABA TEMPLE BACK SIDE BANNERUGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560 076. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VINAY SHREYAS K.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION KOLAR-563 101 2. SRI. PAPANNA S/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 3. SMT. VENKATESHAMMA W/O LATE ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471762026 NC: 2026:KHC:41937 WP No. 21063 of 2026 4. SMT. RADHAMMA W/O LATE ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 5. SMT. SUGUNA D/O LATE ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 6. SRI. VIJAY KUMAR S/O LATE ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 7. SMT. VANITHA D/O LATE ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 8. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE BADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 9. SRI. MANJUNATHA J.B S/O LATE BADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 10. SRI. MURALI J.B S/O LATE BADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 11. SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE BADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 12. SMT. SANGEETHA D/O LATE BADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 13. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O. LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471762026 NC: 2026:KHC:41937 WP No. 21063 of 2026 14. SRI. VENKATESHAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 15. SRI. LACHAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 15 ARE R/AT GUDNAHALLI VILLAGE DODDAKADATHUR, MALUR TALUK KOLARA DISTRICT-563 130 16. SRI. V. RANGASWAMY S/O LATE VELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 17. SMT. CHANDRAMMA W/O V. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 18. SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O LATE VELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 19. SRI. K.V. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE K.V. VELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 20. SMT. VARALAKSHMAMMA W/O K.V. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 21. SRI. K.V. BAPUJI, S/O LATE K.V. VELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 22. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O K.V. BAPUJI - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471762026 NC: 2026:KHC:41937 WP No. 21063 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 23. SRI. JEEVAN .K.B S/O K.V. BAPUJI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 24. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA D/O LATE K.V. VELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS THE RESPONDENT NOS.16 TO 24 ARE R/AT DODDAKADATHUR VILLAGE MALUR TALUK KOLARA DISTRICT-563 130 25. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVAN TAMAKA, KOLAR-563 103 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R25; SRI. C.R. BHASKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R15; VIDE ORDER DATED 13.07.2026 - NOTICE TO R16 TO R24 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.07.2026 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (RESPONDENT NO.25), KOLAR DISTRICT (ANNEXURE-A), IN APPEAL NO.PTCL/52/2026 AND THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2026 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (RESPONDENT NO.01), KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, IN CASE NO.PTCL/127/2024 (ANNEXURE-B), ETC. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471762026 NC: 2026:KHC:41937 WP No. 21063 of 2026 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 1941, as he belonged to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Community. He sold the land in the year 1946 in violation of the permanent non-alienation clause as per the terms of the grant. Presently, the petitioners are the owners of the property. However, the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('PTCL' Act) came into force on 01.01.1979. For the first time, an application was made under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before respondent No.1 in the year 2024. The Assistant Commissioner has allowed the application and has ordered for resumption and restoration of the land in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee. The appeal preferred by the petitioners against the - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471762026 NC: 2026:KHC:41937 WP No. 21063 of 2026 said order has been dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the land was sold in the year 1946 and by 01.01.1979 i.e., the date on which the PTCL Act came into force, the purchaser had perfected his title in respect of the land by virtue of prescription of time. It is further submitted that the PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979 and as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in MANCHEGOWDA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS 1, if a purchaser has perfected his title by virtue of prescription of time, when the sale made is in violation of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act, then in that event, the sale cannot be set aside. It is further contended that, even otherwise, there has been an inordinate delay of 45 years in filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, from the date of coming into force of the PTCL Act, which becomes fatal to the case of the legal representatives of the original grantee. In spite of the same, the impugned orders are passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner in 1 (1984) 3 SCC 301 - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471762026 NC: 2026:KHC:41937 WP No. 21063 of 2026 favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Hence, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 3. Per contra, the contesting respondents as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate justify the impugned orders and pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The questions that arise for consideration are, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, whether the petitioners have perfected their title by virtue of prescription by lapse of time and whether there has been an unreasonable delay on the part of the legal representatives of the original grantee in approaching the Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 5. Admittedly, the grant was made in the year 1941 with a permanent non-alienation clause. However, in violation of the said condition, the land has been transferred in favour of the purchaser in the year 1946. PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. 6. Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act, reads as under: - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471762026 NC: 2026:KHC:41937 WP No. 21063 of 2026 "4. Prohibition of transfer of granted lands.-(1) Notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of this Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant, or sub-section (2) shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer". 7. The Apex Court in MANCHEGOWDA AND OTHERS' case (SUPRA), has upheld the provisions of the PTCL Act. However, in paragraph 15, it has been held that, "if the purchaser has perfected his title by virtue of prescription of time or otherwise, then in that event, the sale cannot be challenged". Para-15 reads as under: "15. Any person who acquires such granted land by transfer from the original grantee in breach of the condition relating to prohibition on such transfer must necessarily be presumed to be aware of the prohibition imposed on the transfer of such granted land. Anybody who acquires such granted land in contravention of the prohibition relating to transfer of such granted land cannot be considered to be a bona fide purchaser for value; and every such transferee acquires to his - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471762026 NC: 2026:KHC:41937 WP No. 21063 of 2026 knowledge only a voidable title to the granted land. The title acquired by such transfer is defeasible and is liable to be defeated by an appropriate action taken in this regard. If the Legislature under such circumstances seek to intervene in the interests of these weaker sections of the community and choose to substitute a speedier and cheaper method of recovery of these granted lands which were otherwise liable to be resumed through legal process, it cannot, in our opinion, be said that any vested rights of the transferees are affected. Transferees of granted lands with full knowledge of the legal position that the transfers made in their favour in contravention of the terms of grant or any law, rule or regulation governing such grant are liable to be defeated in law, cannot and do not have in law or equity, a genuine or real grievance that their defeasible title in such granted lands so transferred is, in fact, being defeated and they are being dispossessed of such lands from which they were in law liable to be dispossessed by process of law. The position will, however, be somewhat different where the transferees have acquired such granted lands not in violation of any term of the grant or any law regulating such grant as also where any transferee who may have acquired a defeasible title in such granted lands by the transfer thereof in contravention of the terms of the grant or any law regulating such grant has perfected his title by prescription of time or otherwise. We shall consider such cases later on. But where the transferee acquires only a defeasible title liable to be defeated in accordance with law, avoidance of such defeasible title which still remains - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471762026 NC: 2026:KHC:41937 WP No. 21063 of 2026 liable to be defeated in accordance with law at the date of commencement of the Act and recovery of possession of such granted land on the basis of the provisions contained in Section 4 and Section 5 of the Act cannot be said to be constitutionally invalid and such a provision cannot be termed as unconscionable, unjust and arbitrary. The first two contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are, therefore, overruled." 8. In the instant case, the cause of action arose for the legal representatives of the original grantee only upon coming into force of the PTCL Act, that is on 01.01.1979. The sale has taken place in the year 1946. The grant was not a conditional grant where the State reserved any right on the property concerned. But, it was absolutely granted in favour of the grantee only with the permanent non-alienation clause. Under the circumstances, it has to be considered that the purchasers have perfected their title by virtue of prescription of time. 9. Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, which mandates prior permission of the Government to be taken for transfer of granted land, is applicable only prospectively and it does not pertain to transactions which have taken place prior to coming into force of the PTCL Act. - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471762026 NC: 2026:KHC:41937 WP No. 21063 of 2026 10. Even otherwise, there is an unreasonable delay on the part of the legal representatives of the original grantee in making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. For the first time, the application has been made before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2024. There has been a delay of 45 years in making the said application after the PTCL Act came into force. The said delay is unexplained. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the same has to be considered as unreasonable. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 11. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned order dated 25.03.2026 bearing No.PTCL/127/2024 passed by respondent No.1- Assistant Commissioner, vide Annexure-B to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (iii) The impugned order dated 07.07.2026 bearing No.PTCL/52/2026 passed by respondent No.25-Deputy Commissioner, vide Annexure-A to the writ petition is - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471762026 NC: 2026:KHC:41937 WP No. 21063 of 2026 hereby set aside; (iv) The application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act by the legal representatives of the original grantee stands dismissed. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58