- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010418642026 NC: 2026:KHC:39065 WP No. 19107 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 19107 OF 2026 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O APPAIANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT KUDUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, S.B. HALLI POST, HUTTURU HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN-563103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVASA T P.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR -563101 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB DIVISION, KOLAR-563101 3. SRI. R. DAMODHAR S/O RAJAPPA, AGE MAJOR, R/AT 495, 15TH CROSS, INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU 560 038. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010418642026 NC: 2026:KHC:39065 WP No. 19107 of 2026 4. SRI. NANJUNDACHARI S/O NYANACHARI, AGE MAJOR, R/AT SULURU VILLAGE, VOKKALERI HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND KOLAR DISTRICT PINCODE 563101 5. SRI. G.V. VIJAYA KUMAR S/O VENKATASWAMY AGE MAJOR, SRINIVASA REDDY LAYOUT, ADJACENT TO AECS LAYOUT, BENGALURU -560 058 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.B.N.PRASHANTH., ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 28.07.2026, NOTICE TO R4 AND 5 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 12/03/2026 IN CASE NO. PTCL/151/2025 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR, VIDE ANNEXURE K TO THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010418642026 NC: 2026:KHC:39065 WP No. 19107 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The case of the petitioner is that his grandfather was granted a land in the year 1964. There was a condition that it should not be alienated for a period of 15 years. However, he has sold the land in the year 1975. It is further submitted that the grandfather of the petitioner belonged to the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe Community. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are said to be the present owners of the land. In the year 2021, for the first time, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act') before respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner. He has allowed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner. Respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the grantee belonged to the Nayaka Community and that the said community was - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010418642026 NC: 2026:KHC:39065 WP No. 19107 of 2026 not considered either a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe at the time of the grant and only thereafter, it has been considered as a Scheduled Tribe, has dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, irrespective of whether the community belonged to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe at the time of the grant, as presently it belongs to the Scheduled Tribe Community and the transfer was within the non-alienation period, respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner ought to have dismissed the appeal. 3. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate justifies the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Admittedly, the community to which the petitioner or his grandfather belonged was not considered as a Scheduled Tribe as on the date of the grant. He was - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010418642026 NC: 2026:KHC:39065 WP No. 19107 of 2026 not a Scheduled Tribe even as on the grant of the sale. It is not in dispute that the community of Nayaka has been considered as a Schedule Tribe Community from the year 1991. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act prohibits the transfer of granted land only in the case of persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe Community. 5. Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act reads as under: "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. " 6. Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act reads as under: "3. Definitions.- (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010418642026 NC: 2026:KHC:39065 WP No. 19107 of 2026 (b) “granted land” means any land granted by the Government to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes and includes land allotted or granted to such person under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to agrarian reforms or land ceilings or abolition of inams, other than that relating to hereditary offices or rights and the word “granted” shall be construed accordingly; " 7. A bare reading of the aforementioned provisions requires a person to whom the land has been granted should belong to the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe Community at the time of grant. If his community is considered as a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe subsequently, the benefit of the provisions of the PTCL Act will not apply to him. 8. Even otherwise, the Act came into force on 01.01.1979 and the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been made in the year 2021. There is an inordinate delay of around 42 years in preferring the application. The delay is unexplained. Under the given - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010418642026 NC: 2026:KHC:39065 WP No. 19107 of 2026 facts and circumstances of the case, it has to be considered unreasonable. Such an unreasonable delay as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 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, becomes fatal to the case of the petitioner. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not see any error in the impugned order passed by respondent No.1. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3