- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010666492023 NC: 2026:KHC:38800 WP No. 29418 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.29418 OF 2023 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI ANJI NAIKA S/O BHIMLA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 2. SMT SAKAMMA D/O BHIMLA NAIKA W/O ROOPLA NYKA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT DHAVADABETTA VILLAGE NIDAGAL HOBLI PAVAGADA TALUK-572 116. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KRISHNA NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MADHUGIRI MADHUGIRI-572132. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION MADHUGIRI-572132. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010666492023 NC: 2026:KHC:38800 WP No. 29418 of 2023 3. SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O LATE PARADESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT KONAKAKURIKE NIGAGAL HOBLI PAVAGADA TALUK - 572 116. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, AGA., FOR R.1 AND R.2; R.3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED R A (SC/ST) PTCL NO.13/2022 DATED 28.08.2023 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AT TUMKUR AT ANNEXURES-A AND B PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AT MADHUGIRI IN CASE NO.PTCL NO.10/2018-19 DATED 27.10.2021, 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: KAHC010666492023 NC: 2026:KHC:38800 WP No. 29418 of 2023 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 1948. It was sold in the year 1974 in violation of the non-alienation clause of the grant. The petitioners purchased the property in the year 1981. It was challenged for the first time in the year 2018 by filing an 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") by respondent No.3 claiming to be the legal representative of the original grantee. The said application has been allowed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner. The appeal filed by the petitioners have been dismissed by respondent No.1- the Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Respondent No.3 though served, has remained unrepresented. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010666492023 NC: 2026:KHC:38800 WP No. 29418 of 2023 3. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 justify the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the application filed by respondent No.3 under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been filed within a reasonable period or not. 5. Admittedly, the sale was made in the year 1981 and it has been challenged for the first time in the year 2018. There is a delay of 37 years in filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The said delay is not explained satisfactorily. Under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of 37 years has to be considered as unreasonable. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 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, such an unreasonable delay is fatal to the case of the grantee and those claiming under him. The impugned orders have been passed without taking this proposition of law into consideration. Hence, the following:- - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010666492023 NC: 2026:KHC:38800 WP No. 29418 of 2023 ORDER i. The writ petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 27.10.2021 bearing No.¦n¹J¯ï: J¸ïDgï:10:2018-19 passed by respondent No.2 (vide Annexure-'B' to the writ petition) is hereby set aside. iii. The impugned order dated 28.08.2023 bearing No.¦.n.¹.J¯ï-13/2022 passed by respondent No.1 (vide Annexure-'A' to the writ petition) is hereby set aside. iv. The application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before respondent No.2 by respondent No.3 is hereby dismissed. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31