- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010394992024 NC: 2026:KHC:41547 WP No. 19252 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.19252 OF 2024 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RANGAMMA S/O LATE DURGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT BAGGANAADU, HIRIYURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA-577501. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577501. 4. THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER TUMAKURU-CHITRADURGA- Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010394992024 NC: 2026:KHC:41547 WP No. 19252 of 2024 DAVANAGERE NEW RAILWAY LINE SCHEME, CHITRADURGA-577501. 5. SMT. BALAMMA W/O KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 6. SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6 ARE R/AT K.R. HALLI, HIRIYURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, AGA., FOR R.1 TO R.4; SRI. YASHWANTH NETHAJI N.T., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R.5 AND R.6.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN SCPTCL(A)-26/2002-03 DATED 15.09.2021 UNDER ANNEXIRE-B, 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: KAHC010394992024 NC: 2026:KHC:41547 WP No. 19252 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 1951. He belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. The same has been sold in the year 1965. It was challenged for the first time in the year 1990. Respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner has allowed the application filed under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act'). The appeal filed by the purchaser against the said order of respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner has also been allowed by the Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the legal representative of the original grantee. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the PTCL Act came to force on 01.01.1979 and within 12 years the petitioner - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010394992024 NC: 2026:KHC:41547 WP No. 19252 of 2024 has challenged the sale. Under the said circumstances, challenge to the sale should be considered to have been done within a reasonable period. He submits that, respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner has passed the appropriate order. Unfortunately, respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner has erroneously allowed the appeal filed by the purchasers. 3. Per contra, both the learned counsel for respondent nos.5 and 6 and learned Additional Government Advocate justify the impugned order and pray for dismissal of the petition. 4. It is contended that the land was sold in the year 1965 and even presuming the same has been sold in violation of the non-alienation clause, the purchasers had perfected their title by way of prescription/adverse possession by the time the PTCL Act came into force in the year 1979. It is further submitted that even thereafter there has been an unreasonable delay of more than 11 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010394992024 NC: 2026:KHC:41547 WP No. 19252 of 2024 years which under the circumstances has to be considered unreasonable. It is also submitted that presently the land concerned has been acquired by respondent no.4 for the purposes of railways and the writ petition is filed only to claim the said compensation at the cost of respondent nos.5 and 6. On the said ground, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 5. Admittedly, the land was granted in the year 1951. As per the submission of learned AGA, non-alienation period was 15 years from the date of grant and the land has been sold within the said non-alienation period in the year 1965. However, it has to be noticed that PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act makes any transfer of land granted in favour of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community person, during the non-alienation period, even if done prior to commencement of the PTCL Act, invalid. The said provision has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010394992024 NC: 2026:KHC:41547 WP No. 19252 of 2024 Manchegowda and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (1984) 3 SCC 301. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court carved out an exception, stating that if the purchaser had perfected his title by way of prescription of time or otherwise, prior to coming into force of the PTCL Act, then in that event the grantee cannot challenge the same. Paragraph no.15 of the Manchegowda's case cited supra 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 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 - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010394992024 NC: 2026:KHC:41547 WP No. 19252 of 2024 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. 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 - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010394992024 NC: 2026:KHC:41547 WP No. 19252 of 2024 title which still remains 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." 6. In the instant case, the sale was of the year 1965 and the PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979, which is more than 14 years and under the circumstances, it has to be held that the purchaser has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. Even otherwise the PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979 and admittedly, an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act is filed in the year 1990. There is a delay of 25 years from the date of sale and 11 years from the date of the PTCL Act coming into force. Under the said circumstances, I do not see any error in the - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010394992024 NC: 2026:KHC:41547 WP No. 19252 of 2024 impugned order passed by respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40