- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34988 WP No. 7191 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 7191 OF 2014 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. D.V.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O VENKATAPPA R/AT YELLAMMANAPALYA VILLAGE DODDA HAGADE DHAKALE KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 106. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.P.LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. N.H.BHASKAR REDDY S/O N.H.SHIVAREDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.672, 17TH C MAIN 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 009. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SUB-DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560 009. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34988 WP No. 7191 of 2014 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT DISTRICT COMMISSIONER OFFICE K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. 4. SHIVAJYOTHI & AMRUTH TOWNSHIP'S WELFARE ASSOCIATION ® NO.12, BLOCK-B, SHIVAJYOTHI LAYOUT DODDAHAGADE, KASABA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR. K.B.VALLABHA RAMU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R2 AND R3; SRI. SHARATH S.GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R1 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE FORM OF WRIT TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 07.12.2013 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 HEREIN IN NO.SC.ST(A)/59/2012-13 UNDER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34988 WP No. 7191 of 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. The case of the petitioner is that, 4 acres 1 gunta of land in Survey No.94 of Dodda Hagade Village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk was granted in favour of one Chikkanna Bhovi on the ground that he belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. It was so granted in the year 1928. It is submitted that the petitioner is a legal heir of the said Chikkanna Bhovi and presently he is in possession of the property concerned. It is also submitted that, though the encumbrance certificate in respect of the property reflects that sale transactions have taken place in respect of portions of the property from the year 1956 onwards, the sales have not been given effect to and the petitioner is in possession of the entire 4 acres 1 gunta of land even as on today. It is submitted that he is cultivating the land and he has also constructed a building thereon. It is also contented that, four sale deeds were executed in respect of the entire land - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34988 WP No. 7191 of 2014 in favour of respondent no.1 herein in the year 2000 and 2001 by four different persons. However, it is submitted that respondent no.1 was not put in possession of the property concerned and petitioner continues to be in possession of the property. It is submitted even otherwise all the sale deeds mentioned in the encumbrance certificate in respect of the land are hit by the provisions of Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the PTCL Act') and hence, the petitioner made an application before respondent no.2- Assistant Commissioner in the year 2011-12 seeking resumption and restoration of the entire 4 acres 1 gunta of land in favour of the petitioner. The said application came to be allowed. Against the said order, respondent no.1 herein preferred an appeal before respondent no.3-Deputy Commissioner. Respondent no.3 taking into consideration that the grant was made way back in the year 1928 and that the non-alienation period was already over and also - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34988 WP No. 7191 of 2014 the fact that the properties were sold from the year 1956 onwards and also by taking note of the fact that petitioner had on an earlier occasion made an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before the Assistant Commissioner and that the same was rejected, allowed the appeal filed by respondent no.1 and set aside the order passed by respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, he is the legal heir of the original grantee. Though several sale deeds have taken place from the year 1956 onwards in respect of the property concerned and there are four sale deeds executed in favour of respondent no.1 in the year 2000 and 2001. The petitioner continues to be in physical possession of the entire 4 acres 1 gunta of land and that respondent no.3 erred in passing the impugned order. He prays that the impugned order be set aside and the order - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34988 WP No. 7191 of 2014 passed by respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner be upheld. 3. Learned High Court Government Pleader and other contesting respondent justify the order passed by respondent no.3-Deputy Commissioner and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Admittedly, the land in question was granted in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Cate/Scheduled Tribe community in the year 1928. It was first alienated in the year 1956 and thereafter several transactions have taken place and finally, four different persons who claimed ownership over portions of the property through several sale deeds have executed four sale deeds in favour of respondent no.1 herein in the year 2000 and 2001. Petitioner, though claimed to be a legal heir of the original grantee has not produced any material to establish his possession over the same. Further, he has challenged the sale executed in favour of respondent no.1 belatedly in the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34988 WP No. 7191 of 2014 year 2011-12 after a lapse of unreasonable period, which is also unexplained. 5. 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 if there is an unreasonable delay in challenging the sale, it becomes fatal to the application made under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not see any merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG