- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35371 WP No. 37727 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 37727 OF 2025 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHANTHIBAI W/O LATE PARAMESHWARA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/OF RANGAPURA THANDA DEVARAHALLI POST CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N.R.NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HONNALI SUB-DIVISION DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 4. SRI. PRABHAKAR S/O LATE RANGAPPA Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35371 WP No. 37727 of 2025 AGED : MAJOR 5. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED : MAJOR RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 ARE R/OF DEVARAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 6. SMT. MANJAMMA W/O GANGANNA D/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED : MAJOR 7. SMT. NETHRAVATHI W/O NEELAPPA AGED : MAJOR RESPONDENT NOS.6 AND 7 ARE R/OF JAYANAGARA 'B' BLOCK DAVANAGERE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA N., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. CHIDAMBARA G.S., ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R7) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN NO.PTCL/35/2025 DATED 13.11.2025 BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF 3RD RESPONDENT IN NO.PTCL/CR/10/2022-23 DATED 25.03.2025 IN RESPECT OF THE LAND MEASURING 1 ACRE 17 GUNTAS AT SY.NO.27 OF CHIKKADEVARAHALLI VILLAGE, SANTHEBENNURU-2 HOBLI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-C AND B AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35371 WP No. 37727 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. Aggrieved by the order passed by respondent no.2 bearing No.PTCL/35/2025, the grantee has preferred this writ petition. 2. The petitioner was granted the land which is the subject matter of the writ petition (measuring 1 acre 17 guntas) in the year 1977. She sold the land by virtue of two sale deeds in favour of third parties in the year 1994. Presently, respondent nos.4 to 7 are said to be the owners of the property concerned. 3. In the year 2022 after a lapse of 28 years, petitioner preferred an application before respondent no.3 for resumption and restoration of the land under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the PTCL Act'). Respondent no.2 came to the conclusion that the land is a granted land and the sale took place without due permission from the State and passed an order resuming and restoring the land in favour of the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the same, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35371 WP No. 37727 of 2025 the purchaser filed an appeal before respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner, who has allowed the appeal relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 and also on the ground that the land is not a granted land because it was allotted to the grantee by regularizing the unauthorized cultivation. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The case of the petitioner is that, the land is a granted land and it was sold without obtaining the necessary permission from the State and thus the order passed by respondent no.3- Assistant Commissioner is correct and the impugned order passed by respondent no.2 is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned AGA appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3-State adopts the arguments of the petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 to 7 justifies the order passed by respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35371 WP No. 37727 of 2025 7. The questions that arises for consideration in the instant writ petition is 'whether the land in question is the granted lands for the purpose of Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act and whether there is an inordinate and unreasonable delay on part of the petitioner in questioning the alienation'. 8. Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act reads as under: "3(b) “granted land” means any land granted by the Government to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes and includes land allotted or granted to such person under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to agrarian reforms or land ceilings or abolition of inams, other than that relating to hereditary offices or rights and the word “granted” shall be construed accordingly." 9. Thus, granted land means any land granted to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes under any law pertaining to agrarian reforms or land ceilings or abolition of inams other than that relating to hereditary offices or rights. 10. Regularization of unauthorized occupation and cultivation of the land under the law has to be considered as a law pertaining to agrarian reforms. Hence, even if the land is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35371 WP No. 37727 of 2025 granted to a person belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes community by regularization of his unauthorized occupation and cultivation of a land, then it has to be construed as a granted land for the purposes of Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act. 11. Insofar as it relates to the question of delay, admittedly the land was granted to the petitioner in the year 1977 with the condition that the land should not be alienated for a period of 15 years. After a lapse of 15 years in the year 1994, the petitioner has sold the land by virtue of two sale deeds. However, the petitioner has not taken the necessary permission as contemplated under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. However, the petitioner has challenged the said sale and sought for restoration and resumption of the land belatedly after a lapse of 28 years in the year 2022. The inordinate and unreasonable delay in questioning the alienation has not been explained. By virtue of the ratio laid down by the 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35371 WP No. 37727 of 2025 W.P.No.3597/2018, the said inordinate delay of 28 years, becomes fatal to the case of the petitioner. 12. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9