- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010064162020 NC: 2026:KHC:36437 WP No. 3681 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 3681 OF 2020 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O SRI. CHEERANAHALLI RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS AGRICULTURIST HONNANAAKANAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 217. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MARUTHI G.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE-577 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB DIVISION DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001. 3. SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O NAGESHAPPA R/AT DODDABIGERE VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010064162020 NC: 2026:KHC:36437 WP No. 3681 of 2020 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213. 4. SRI. VENKATESH S/O SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA R/AT MALLIGENAHALLI VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 301. 5. SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O SRI. CHANDRAPPA R/AT THUYAGADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 217. 6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH D.NAIK, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.N.NANJUNDASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2020 IN CASE BEARING NO.PTCL/CR- 12/2018-19 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND 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: KAHC010064162020 NC: 2026:KHC:36437 WP No. 3681 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. Respondent nos.3 to 5 are the legal heirs of the original grantee. The land which is the subject matter of the writ petition was granted to the original grantee in the year 1959, who happened to be a person belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. There was a non-alienation period for a period of 15 years. After the expiry of the said non- alienation period, however, without obtaining the necessary permission from the State as required under Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the PTCL Act'), legal heirs of the original grantee sold the land in the year 1997 in favour of the petitioner. The said sale has been challenged in the year 2015 under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. Respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner has passed the order allowing the said application and has ordered for restoration of the land in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent no.1-Deputy Commissioner, which has also been - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010064162020 NC: 2026:KHC:36437 WP No. 3681 of 2020 dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the purchase has been made after the expiry of the non-alienation period and though the necessary permission has not been obtained from the State, the same has been challenged after a lapse of 18 years, which is unreasonable and hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside based on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 as well as the decision of this Court in the case of R.Suresh Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.3597/2018. 3. Both learned AGA and learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 to 5 justify the impugned orders and pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Admittedly, the land was granted in the year 1959 and after expiry of the non-alienation period, the same was sold for a valuable sale consideration in the year 1997. However, necessary permission under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act has - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010064162020 NC: 2026:KHC:36437 WP No. 3681 of 2020 not been obtained. But it is seen that there has been a delay of 18 years in filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The said delay has not been explained satisfactorily and under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the same has to be considered unreasonable. When there is an unreasonable delay, application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act cannot be entertained. This law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 as well as the decision of this Court in the case of R.Suresh Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.3597/2018. 5. As per the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3597/2018 and amendment which is carried out to Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2023 will also not come to the rescue of respondent nos.3 to 5. 6. Further, petitioner fairly submits that, she does not intend to challenge the constitutional validity of the amendment which she has prayed for in the writ petition and that she would be satisfied if the orders passed by respondent nos.1 and 2 are - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010064162020 NC: 2026:KHC:36437 WP No. 3681 of 2020 set aside based upon the ratio laid down by this Court in W.P.No.3597/2018. 8. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 12.12.2018 bearing No.¦n¹J¯ï/¹Dgï/05/16-17 passed by respondent no.2 (vide Annexure-B to the writ petition) is hereby set aside; (ii) The impugned order dated 10.01.2020 bearing No.¦n¹J¯ï/¹Dgï-12/2018-19 passed by respondent no.1 (vide Annexure-A to the writ petition) is hereby set aside; (iii) The application made under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before respondent no.2 by respondent nos.3 to 5 is hereby dismissed; (iv) The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26