- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010743052024 NC: 2026:KHC:39652 WP No. 36131 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 36131 OF 2024 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: SRI MUNIYELLAPPA S/O LATE SHAMBAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1523, CHIKKANAHALLI ROAD, YELLAMMADEVI TEMPLE ROAD, ATTIBELE ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT PIN - 562 107. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA M.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, K.G. ROAD, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI W/O LATE K V GOPINATHA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 4. KUM THEJASWINI D/O LATE K V GOPINATHA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010743052024 NC: 2026:KHC:39652 WP No. 36131 of 2024 5. SRI PRAFUL S/O LATE K V GOPINATHA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 5 ARE R/AT CHIKKANAHALLI KAMMAHALLI, VILLAGE, KUGURU POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. PIN - 562 107 6. SRI K V JANARDHANA S/O K R VENKATAREDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKANAHALLI KAMMAHALLI, VILLAGE, KUGURU POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. PIN - 562 107 7. SRI S NAGARAJU S/O LATE SHAMBAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT ARENURU VILLAGE, BIDARAGUPPE POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TLAUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. PIN - 562 107. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2 SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.01.2025, NOTICE TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH) - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010743052024 NC: 2026:KHC:39652 WP No. 36131 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN CASE NO. SC/ST (A)/101/2011-12 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE NO. K.SC.ST(A).62/2008-09 VIDE ORDER DATED 05.01.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER The land which is the subject matter of the writ petition is said to have been granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1953. His sole son namely Sri.Shambappa had sold the land in the year 1956. The petitioner is said to be the legal representative of the original grantee. Respondent Nos.3 to 6 are said to be the present owners of the land. Respondent No.7 is said to be the brother of the petitioner. For the first time, the sale - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010743052024 NC: 2026:KHC:39652 WP No. 36131 of 2024 was challenged in the year 2008. On the ground that the petitioner failed to produce any documents, respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner has dismissed the petition. The same has been confirmed by respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. In the present proceedings, the petitioner has failed to produce any documents to show that the land has been granted in favour of the original grantee. He has also not produced documents to show that he is the sole legal heir of the original grantee. He has also failed to explain the unreasonable delay of 29 years in preferring the application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act') from the date of the Act coming into force. Further, he is not in a position to state that the extent of non-alienation period subject to which the grant has been made in favour of the original grantee. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010743052024 NC: 2026:KHC:39652 WP No. 36131 of 2024 3. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6 justifies the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate supports the contention of the petitioner. 5. However, she is not in a position to state that the period of non-alienation and she is also not in a position to produce the documents pertaining to the grant. 6. As the petitioner has failed to produce the relevant documents pertaining to the grant, I do not see any error in the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 1. Even otherwise, the inordinate delay of 29 years in filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. Hence, the delay has to be considered as unreasonable. 7. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2020) 14 SCC - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010743052024 NC: 2026:KHC:39652 WP No. 36131 of 2024 232 as well as the decision of this Court in R.Suresh Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.3597/2018, an unreasonable delay in making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act becomes fatal to it. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47