- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010593182024 NC: 2026:KHC:40456 WP No. 29375 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.29375 OF 2024 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O. DODDAKAPINI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT BISUVANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, VEERAPURA POST, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK-561 203. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU-562 110. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA-561 203. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010593182024 NC: 2026:KHC:40456 WP No. 29375 of 2024 3. SRI. RAJESH CHHABRIA S/O. LATE HARI RAM CHHABRIA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.1, PINE VIEW, NO.9, EDWARD ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA., FOR R.1 AND R.2; SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R.3.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO GRANT A WRIT OF CERIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CASE NO.LND/SC-ST(A)05/2016-17 (ANNEXURE-A), CONSEQUENTLY UPHELD THE ORDER DATED 23.06.2012 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE NO.PTCL:SR:(DB):7/2006-07 (ANNEXURE-F) BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION, ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010593182024 NC: 2026:KHC:40456 WP No. 29375 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 1962 and he belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. He sold the land in the year 1965 in violation of the non-alienation clause. For the first time, the sale was challenged in the year 2006 by making an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act') Act by the petitioner who claims to be the legal representative of the original grantee. Respondent no.3 herein is the present owner of the property. Respondent no.2- Assistant Commissioner allowed the application and ordered for resumption and restoration of property. On an appeal filed by respondent no.3, respondent no.1-Deputy Commissioner has reversed the order of respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010593182024 NC: 2026:KHC:40456 WP No. 29375 of 2024 2. The case of the petitioner is that, there was an inordinate delay on part of respondent no.3 in filing an appeal before respondent no.1. It is submitted that there has been a delay of around four and a half years. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not served with the notice of the appeal. Because of which he could not participate in the proceedings and an opportunity may be granted to him to participate in the appeal proceedings by allowing the present writ petition and remanding the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner- respondent no.1. 3. Per contra, respondent no.3 justifies the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. It is submitted that though there was a delay in filing the appeal before respondent no.1-Deputy Commissioner, the same has been properly considered and condoned by respondent no.1. It is submitted that, the proceedings also indicate that the petitioner herein was served with adequate notice, but he chose to remain absent. Even otherwise it is submitted that as per the admitted facts, the land was first sold in the year 1965 and the same was challenged for the first time in the year 2006 and that - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010593182024 NC: 2026:KHC:40456 WP No. 29375 of 2024 there has been an inordinate delay in challenging the same and there is no error in the impugned order which has set right the mistake committed by respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner. Remanding the matter back to respondent no.1- Deputy Commissioner will not serve any purpose. For the said reasons, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate upon instructions, supports the contention of the petitioner and prays for allowing the writ petition. 5. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that respondent no.1 has taken all the factors into consideration regarding delay in filing of the appeal by respondent no.3 and has condoned the same. The records also reveal that petitioner was served with notice and he chose to remain absent before respondent no.1. Further, there is no dispute as to the fact that the land was first sold in the year 1965. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979 and under the circumstances one has to hold that the purchaser had perfected his title by way of prescription/adverse possession as the property was purchased around 14 years prior to the PTCL Act coming into force. Even - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010593182024 NC: 2026:KHC:40456 WP No. 29375 of 2024 otherwise there has been an inordinate delay of 27 years in preferring an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act by the petitioner since the PTCL Act came into force. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the same has to be considered unreasonable. 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 have held that unreasonable delay in making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act will become fatal to the case of original grantee. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not see any error in the order passed by respondent no.1 and the writ petition stands dismissed. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41