- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010076442025 NC: 2026:KHC:41548 WP No. 3428 of 2025 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. 3428 OF 2025 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: SRI. RAMAKRISHNAIAH S/O KOGINA MARAIAH @ SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NERALAKATTE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI GUBBI TLAU TUMAKURU DISRICT-572 216 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMEN OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU SUB DIVISION Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010076442025 NC: 2026:KHC:41548 WP No. 3428 of 2025 TUMAKURU TALUK TUMKURU DISRICT-572 101 4. SR. H.R. KRISHNAMURHTY S/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O HULLEKERE VILLAGE TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISRICT-572 227 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. ANIRUDH CHAMUNDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 [ABSENT]) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU IN P.T.C.L.APPEAL NO.1/2020 DATED 07.02.2022 AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU SUB DIVISION, TUMAKURU IN P.T.C.L.NO.38/2009-2010 DATED 04.01.2017 UNDER ANNEXURE-B AND C, 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: KAHC010076442025 NC: 2026:KHC:41548 WP No. 3428 of 2025 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 1976. He belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. The grant was subject to a condition that the land should not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of grant. For the first time, the land was sold in the year 1988 in violation of the non-alienation clause. Presently, petitioner is the owner of the property concerned. Respondent no.4 is the legal representative of the original grantee. For the first time, 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') challenging the sale was filed in the year 2008 by respondent no.4. Respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner allowed the application on the ground that Sections 4(1) and 4(2) of the PTCL Act was violated and ordered for resumption and restoration of the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order of Assistant - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010076442025 NC: 2026:KHC:41548 WP No. 3428 of 2025 Commissioner has been dismissed by respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been filed after an unreasonable delay of 20 years from the date of sale and the said delay has not been satisfactorily explained. On the said ground, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 3. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 is absent. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate justifies the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The only question that arises for consideration is whether there is any inordinate and unreasonable delay in filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 6. 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 an unreasonable delay in challenging the sale - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010076442025 NC: 2026:KHC:41548 WP No. 3428 of 2025 becomes fatal to an application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 7. Admittedly, the sale was effected in the year 1988. The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed only in the year 2008, after a lapse of 20 years from the date of sale. The said delay has not been satisfactorily explained by respondent no.4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the same has to be held as unreasonable. Respondent nos.2 and 3 have committed an error by passing the impugned orders. Accordingly, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 8. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned order dated 04.01.2017 bearing no.¦.n.¹.J¯ï.:38/2009-10 passed by respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-C to the writ petition is hereby set aside; - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010076442025 NC: 2026:KHC:41548 WP No. 3428 of 2025 (iii) The impugned order dated 07.02.2022 bearing no.¦.n.¹.J¯ï.01/2020 passed by respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-B to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (iv) The application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act by respondent no.4 before respondent no.3 is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46