- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010462992022 NC: 2026:KHC:36376 WP No. 20210 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 20210 OF 2022 (SCST) BETWEEN: A. J. SHIVA PRASAD, S/O RAJASHEKAR (LATE), AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.1395, 1ST CROSS, 2ND FLOOR, POORNADRUSTI ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGAR C & D BLOCK, MYSORE - 570 023. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAN B.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE - 570 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MYSORE SUB - DIVISION, MYSORE -570 001. 3. J.N.SINDHU, S/O LATE J.NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010462992022 NC: 2026:KHC:36376 WP No. 20210 of 2022 4. SAGAR J, S/O J NAGARAJ (LATE), AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, BOTH RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4 ARE R/AT NO.124/44-45, 20TH MAIN ROAD, OPP. TO KIDNEY FOUNDATION HOSPITAL, PADMANABHA NAGAR, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 070. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.CHANDINI S., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.VENKATESH R BHAGAT, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2022 PASSED BY THE R1 IN PTCL16/2013.14(ANNEXURE-A); DIRECTION AS MAY BE NECESSARY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE PER THE DECISION TAKEN IN THE MEETING DATED AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010462992022 NC: 2026:KHC:36376 WP No. 20210 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 16.03.2022 passed by respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A to the writ petition, the legal heir of the original grantee has preferred this writ petition. 2. The land, which is the subject matter of the writ petition, was granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1955. He sold the same in the year 1965 to the mother of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in violation of the grant condition. However, for the first time, the petitioner preferred an application before respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner in the year 2009 after a delay of around 44 years from the date of sale. Respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner has allowed the same in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, respondent Nos.3 and 4 preferred an appeal before respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner. The said appeal has been allowed, against which this writ petition is preferred by the legal representative of the original grantee. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010462992022 NC: 2026:KHC:36376 WP No. 20210 of 2022 3. The case of the petitioner is that admittedly the sale has taken place in violation of the grant condition and that irrespective of the delay involved in challenging the same under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act'), in the light of the amendment made to Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2023, an order ought to have been passed in favour of the petitioner and respondent No.1 committed an error in allowing the appeal. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that there is an unreasonable delay on the part of the petitioner in challenging the same under Section 5 of the PTCL Act and the same is in violation of the law 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 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, and the amendment carried out to Section 5 of the PTCL Act in this regard in the year 2023 does not come to the rescue of the petitioner. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010462992022 NC: 2026:KHC:36376 WP No. 20210 of 2022 5. Though learned AGA justifies the order passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner and supports the contention of the petitioner, she is not in a position to dispute the fact that the challenge is made after an unreasonable delay of 44 years and according to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi, as well as the decision of this Court in R.Suresh Mohan in W.P.No.3597/2018 supra, irrespective of the amendment carried out to Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2023, it will not help the cause of the petitioner. 6. As there is an unreasonable delay of 44 years in challenging the same, in my opinion respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner has rightly allowed the appeal and there is no error in his order. The petitioner is not entitled for resumption and restoration of the land as prayed for. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) hdk JUDGE