- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010305762025 NC: 2026:KHC:40146 WP No. 13276 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 13276 OF 2025 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SHIVANNA S/O CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 2. KEMPAMMA DEATH BY LR'S DEVARAJ S/O LATE VENKI BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 3. SRI. NANJUNDAIAH S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 4. DASEGOWDA S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS THE PETITIONERS ARE RESIDENTS OF VIGNASANTHE VILLAGE NONAVINAKERE HOBLI TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 224. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. D.P. MAHESH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010305762025 NC: 2026:KHC:40146 WP No. 13276 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SUB-DIVISION, TIPTUR TIPTUR-572 201. 4. THE TAHASILDAR TIPTUR TALUK, TIPTUR-572 201. 5. SRI. S.R. ANJINAPPA S/O LATE RANGAIAH R/O SOMENAHALLI VILLAGE AGED MAJOR KASABA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE HOBLI TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 227. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, AGA., FOR R.1 TO R.4; SMT. MANORANJINI, ADVOCATE FOR R.5.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10-6-2024 PASSED IN PTCL.NO.7/2011-12, BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS RESUMPTION OF LAND ONLY, 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: KAHC010305762025 NC: 2026:KHC:40146 WP No. 13276 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 1953. He belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. There was a non-alienation clause that the land should not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of grant. For the first time, the land was sold in the year 1953. An application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act') was filed by respondent no.5 in the year 2005 against the said sale. The said application was allowed by respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order of respondent no.3 has been dismissed by respondent no.2- Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010305762025 NC: 2026:KHC:40146 WP No. 13276 of 2025 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 52 years from the date of the sale and 26 years from the date of PTCL Act coming into force (w.e.f. 01.01.1979) and the said delay is unexplained. On the said ground, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 3. Both learned counsel for respondent no.5 and learned Additional Government Advocate justify the impugned orders and pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The only question that arises for consideration is whether there is any inordinate and unreasonable delay in making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 5. 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 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010305762025 NC: 2026:KHC:40146 WP No. 13276 of 2025 W.P.No.3597/2018 have held that if there is any unreasonable delay in challenging the sale, it becomes fatal to the application made under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 6. Admittedly, in the instant case there is a delay of 52 years from the date of the sale and 26 years from the date of PTCL Act coming into force. The said delay is not satisfactorily explained by respondent no.5 and under the given facts and circumstances of the case, it has to be held as unreasonable. 7. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 21.03.2011 passed by respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner bearing no.¦n¹J¯ï J¸ïDgï 5/06-07 vide Annexure-A1 to the writ petition is hereby set aside; - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010305762025 NC: 2026:KHC:40146 WP No. 13276 of 2025 (ii) The impugned order dated 10.06.2024 passed by respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner bearing no.PTCL.07/2011- 12 vide Annexure-A 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; (v) Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41