- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35818 WP No. 3601 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 3601 OF 2018 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: SRI. R. SURESH MOHAN S/O RANGAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.13, 3RD CROSS BHARATIYAR ROAD, CHOLAIMEDU CHENNAI - 600 094, TAMILNADU. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V. SANJAY KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECRETARY M.S. BUILDING, B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLLEGALA SUB-DIVISION, KOLLEGALA CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 115. 4. HONGAIAH @ CHIKKA HONGAIAH S/O LATE HEDANDI HONGAIAH Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35818 WP No. 3601 of 2018 SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS 4(A). SMT. BASAMMA W/O LATE HONGAIAH @ CHIKKA HONGAIAH MAJOR, 4(B). KUM. DODDATAYAMMA D/O LATE HONGAIAH @ CHIKKA HONGAIAH MAJOR 4(C). KUM. CHIKKATAYAMMA D/O LATE HONGAIAH @ CHIKKA HONGAIAH MAJOR 4(D). SRI PUTTASWAMY D/O LATE HONGAIAH @ CHIKKA HONGAIAH MAJOR 4(E). KUM. MAHADEVAMMA D/O LATE HONGAIAH @ CHIKKA HONGAIAH MAJOR 4(F). KUM. SHANTAMMA D/O LATE HONGAIAH @ CHIKKA HONGAIAH MAJOR 4(G). KUM. RATNAMMA D/O LATE HONGAIAH @ CHIKKA HONGAIAH MAJOR 4(H). SRI LOKESH S/O LATE HONGAIAH @ CHIKKA HONGAIAH MAJOR RESPONDENTA 4(A) TO 4(H) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35818 WP No. 3601 of 2018 RESIDING AT MANGALA GRAMA KOLLEGALA TALUK - 571 115. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA N, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. VIJAY G. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4(B TO H) R4(A)-SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 9.10.2017 IN P.T.C.L NO.8/2011-12 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, THE RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER The petitioner is the legal representative of the purchaser of the land and respondent Nos.4(a) to 4(h) are the legal representatives of the original grantee. Admittedly, the grant in favour of the original grantee was made in the year 1967 and it was sold in the same year. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35818 WP No. 3601 of 2018 However, 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') was made for the first time in the year 2010. Respondent No.3 - the Assistant Commissioner passed an order directing resumption of the land and its forfeiture to the Government. Aggrieved by the said order, both the grantee and the purchaser preferred appeals before respondent No.2 - the Deputy Commissioner. Respondent No.2 - the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order restoring the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, there has been an inordinate delay of 43 years in challenging the sale and by virtue of the ratio laid down by 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35818 WP No. 3601 of 2018 Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.3597/2018, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 3. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4(b) to 4(h) justify the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The question that arises for consideration is: Whether there has been an inordinate delay on the part of the grantee or a person claiming under him in making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, it would be fatal to their case? 5. Admittedly, there has been an unexplained delay of 43 years in making the application before respondent No.3 - the Assistant Commissioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35818 WP No. 3601 of 2018 6. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the said delay has to be considered unreasonable. Relying upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another, as well as this Court in W.P.No.3597/2018, the delay would become fatal to the case of respondent Nos.4(a) to 4(h) and the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.3 and 2 are liable to be set aside. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 09.10.2017 bearing No. ...ಎ/08/2011-12 passed by respondent No.2 - the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure - A to the writ petition is hereby set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35818 WP No. 3601 of 2018 iii. The impugned order dated 18.10.2011 bearing No. ...ಎ:ಸಂೆ :6/2010-11 passed by respondent No.3 - the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure - B to the writ petition is hereby set aside. iv. The application made under Section 5 of the PTCL Act by the original grantee / his legal representatives is hereby dismissed. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24