- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010038922025 NC: 2026:KHC:39630 WP No. 1494 of 2025 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. 1494 OF 2025 (SCST-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS R/O TIRUKARANGAIAHNA PALYA THIPPASANDRA HOBLI MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 120. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT TUMAKURU-572 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION TUMAKURU-572 101. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010038922025 NC: 2026:KHC:39630 WP No. 1494 of 2025 4. THE TAHASILDAR TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU-572 101. 5. SRI. GOVINDAIAH S/O. NARASIMHA @ NARASIMHAIAH AGED : MAJOR R/O NO.41/0-1, 6TH CROSS 1ST MAIN ROAD KANTEERAVA NAGARA NANDINI LAYOUT JARAKABANDE KAVAL YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. N.R.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R5 [ABSENT]) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.10.2024 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE NO.PTCL-16/2022 AT ANNEXURE- A AND THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2022 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN CASE NO.PTCL7:2019-20 AT ANNEXURE-E AND 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: KAHC010038922025 NC: 2026:KHC:39630 WP No. 1494 of 2025 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 1935. He belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. The land was sold in the year 1964 in violation of the non- alienation clause subject to which the grant was made. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act') came into force on 01.01.1979. An application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed by respondent no.5 for the first time in the year 2019. The said application was allowed by respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of respondent no.3 has been dismissed by respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been allowed inspite of an unreasonable delay of 55 years since the date of the sale and around 40 years from the date of the Act coming into force and - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010038922025 NC: 2026:KHC:39630 WP No. 1494 of 2025 the said delay is unexplained. On the said ground, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 3. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 is absent. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate justifies the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The only question that arises for consideration is whether there is any inordinate unreasonable delay in making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 6. The Hon'ble 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 W.P.No.3597/2018 have held that if there is an unreasonable delay in challenging the sale, it becomes fatal to the application made under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 7. Admittedly, in the instant case there is a delay of around 40 years in challenging the sale from the date of PTCL Act coming into force. The said delay is not explained and under - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010038922025 NC: 2026:KHC:39630 WP No. 1494 of 2025 the given facts and circumstances of the case, it has to be held as unreasonable. 8. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 22.10.2024 passed by respondent no.2 bearing no.¦.n.¹.J¯ï-16/2022 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (ii) The impugned order dated 23.03.2022 passed by respondent no.3 bearing no.¦n¹J¯ï:7/2019-20 vide Annexure-E to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (iii) The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act filed by respondent no.5 before respondent no.3 is hereby dismissed; (iv) The writ petition stands allowed accordingly; SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50