- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35812 WP No. 39157 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 39157 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. DHARMAPAL R S/O LATE RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 2. BALAKRISHNA R, S/O LATE RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 3. SMT. PUSHPAVATHI R, W/O LATE MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 4. NARAYAN R, S/O LATE RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 5. RAJU R, S/O LATE RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 6. SRI. RAMU R, S/O LATE RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 7. SMT. LAKSHMI R, W/O SRINIVAS, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35812 WP No. 39157 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 8. SMT. KEERTHI YUVARANI, W/O SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT BHOVI COLONY MARKET ROAD, CHIKMAGALUR, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAVEEN J.N, ADVOCATE-VC) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDINGS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001 REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALURU SUB DIVISION, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. 4. THE TEHSILDAR, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35812 WP No. 39157 of 2025 5. SRI. M.R.NAGARAJ, S/O LATE SRI. M.L.RAMACHANDRA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT INDIRAGANDHI ROAD, BEHIND VYSHYA HOSTEL, CHIKMAGALUR CITY CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 101. 6. SRI. B. SRIDHAR, S/O BHAKTHAVATHSALAM CHETTIYAR, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHANTHINIKETHAN, RATHNAGIRI ROAD, CHIKMAGALUR CITY CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 101. 7. SMT. PREMA NAGARAJ, W/O SRI. M.R. NAGARAJ, S/O LATE SRI M.L. RAMACHANDRA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT INDIRAGANDHI ROAD, BEHIND VYSHYA HOSTEL, CHIKMAGALUR CITY CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA N, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. KASHYAP N. NAIK, ADVOCATE SRI. VIVEK B.R, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R7; NOTICE TO R6 AND R8 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN PTCL NO. 8/2020-21 DATED 17.04.2025 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AD ETC., - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35812 WP No. 39157 of 2025 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 case of the petitioners is that they are the legal representatives of the original grantee, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Community. The land was granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1954. It was sold in the year 1982. It is submitted that the land has been converted, sites have been formed and the same is sold to third parties by the purchaser. In the year 2013, for the first time, the sale has been challenged before the Assistant Commissioner (respondent No.3) by making 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'). Respondent No.3 - the Assistant Commissioner allowed the application and ordered for resumption and restoration of the land in favour of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35812 WP No. 39157 of 2025 legal representatives of the original grantee. The said order was challenged before respondent No.2 - the Deputy Commissioner, who has set aside the order, passed by respondent No.3 and dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the order passed by respondent No.2 is erroneous and the same is liable to be dismissed. 3. The learned Additional Government Advocate supports the contentions of the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 7 justifies the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Admittedly, the land was sold in the year 1982, after a lapse of non-alienation period, but without obtaining the necessary permission from the State Government. However, it has been challenged for the first time in the year 2013 after a lapse of 31 years. The delay - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35812 WP No. 39157 of 2025 under the given facts and circumstances of the case has to be considered unreasonable and it becomes fatal to the case of the petitioners in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 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. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not see any infirmity in the order passed by respondent No.2 and accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9