- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010714552024 NC: 2026:KHC:39517 WP No. 35299 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 35299 OF 2024 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: SRI. GANGEGOWDA, S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S SRI. RAMESH, S/O LATE GANGEGOWDA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S 1. THANVI R. GOWDA, D/O LATE RAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SMT. PALLAVI H.B. i.e., 2. 2. SMT. PALLAVI.H.B., W/O LATE RAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 3. SRI. NATESHA, S/O LATE GANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 4. SRI. BOREGOWDA, S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010714552024 NC: 2026:KHC:39517 WP No. 35299 of 2024 ALL ARE RESIDING AT KALASINDA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAMAKRISHNAIAH M.G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HASSAN SUB-DIVISION, HASSAN - 573 201. 3. SRI GOVINDAIAH, S/O LATE VENKATACHALAIAH, MAJOR, RESIDING AT SAMPIGE HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, SAMPIGE POST, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 129. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. SANJEEV RAO S, ADVOCATE FOR R3 (ABSENT)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE BOTH IMPUGNED ORDERS IN LND/SC/ST CRP 05/15-16 DATED 18.07.2018 AS ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN AND IN PTCL 03/2018-19 DATED - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010714552024 NC: 2026:KHC:39517 WP No. 35299 of 2024 28.12.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION 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 land which is the subject matter of the writ petition was granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1957. He belonged to the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe Community. There was a non-alienation clause that the land shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years. He sold the land in the year 1965. Presently, the petitioners are the owners of the property. Respondent No.3 is the legal representative of the original grantee. Respondent No.3, for the first time, filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010714552024 NC: 2026:KHC:39517 WP No. 35299 of 2024 Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act') in the year 2015. Respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner has allowed the application and has ordered for resumption and restoration of the land in favour of respondent No.3. The appeal filed before respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioners is that, there has been an inordinate and unreasonable delay of 50 years since the sale deed and 36 years since the PTCL Act came into force, in preferring an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act by respondent No.3 and this fact has not been considered by respondent Nos.2 and 1 while passing the impugned orders. On the said ground, they pray for allowing the writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 is absent. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010714552024 NC: 2026:KHC:39517 WP No. 35299 of 2024 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 justifies the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The only question that arises for consideration is, whether there has been any inordinate and unreasonable delay on the part of respondent No.3 in making an application under the Provisions of the PTCL Act. 6. Admittedly, the land was sold in the year 1965 itself. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. However, the sale has been questioned belatedly in the year 2015, after a lapse of 36 years from the date of Act coming into force. The delay is unexplained. Under the circumstances, it has to be considered unreasonable and the impugned orders have been passed without taking this fact into consideration. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010714552024 NC: 2026:KHC:39517 WP No. 35299 of 2024 7. As per 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 Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.3597/2018, has held that any unreasonable delay in making the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act becomes fatal. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 18.07.2018 bearing Case No. ಎ.ಎ./ಎ./ಎ..CRP.05/15-16 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure - D to the writ petition, is hereby set aside. iii. The impugned order dated 28.12.2023 bearing No. ಎ.03/2018-19 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure - E to the writ petition, is hereby set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010714552024 NC: 2026:KHC:39517 WP No. 35299 of 2024 iv. The application made by respondent No.3 before respondent No.2 under Section 5 of the PTCL Act stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45