- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35374 WP No. 8959 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.8959 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. VENKATESHAPPA, S/O LATE MUNIERANA BHOVI @ MYAKALA MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT KANIVINAHALLI VILLAGE, KASBA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHOKKA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. 2. THE DY. COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 101. 3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR-563 101. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35374 WP No. 8959 of 2025 4. H.S. THIMMARAJU, S/O H.S. SHAMMANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 5. H.S. CHANDRASHEKARA, S/O H.S. SHAMMANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 6. H.S. MANJUNATHA, S/O H.S. SHAMMANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 6 ARE R/AT HUNGENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASBA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA N., AGA., FOR R.1 TO R.3; SRI. HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE FOR R.4 TO R.6.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.8.2024 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CASE NO.PTCL/12/2024 UNDER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT, ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35374 WP No. 8959 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The case of the petitioner is that the land (which is the subject matter of the writ petition) was granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1931 and that the petitioner is the legal heir of the original grantee. The land was alienated on 01.12.1966 without obtaining necessary permission from the Government. The same was challenged by the petitioner in the year 2023. The prayer of the petitioner has not been considered favourably by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner as well as respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner as per the impugned orders. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 2. Learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3 supports the case of the petitioner. 3. Per contra, respondent Nos.4 to 6 justify the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35374 WP No. 8959 of 2025 4. Admittedly, the grant was made in favour of the original grantee in the year 1931. The land has been alienated in the year 1966. The conditions of the grant have not been violated while alienating the said land. This fact is neither disputed by the petitioner nor the State. 5. The sole ground urged by the petitioner is that after coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act'), if the land belonged to a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community, any transfer made prior to commencement of the PTCL Act is liable to be set aside. This, however, is not what is contemplated under the PTCL Act. If the granted land is alienated in violation of the conditions of the grant, in such an event, even though the transaction had taken place prior to coming into force of the PTCL Act, subject to the title of prescription, the said transfer can be challenged as being in violation of the PTCL Act. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35374 WP No. 8959 of 2025 6. Even otherwise, it is seen that the land was alienated in the year 1966 and it was challenged for the first time in the year 2023 i.e., after a lapse of 57 years. The said unreasonable and inordinate delay has not been explained by the petitioner. The learned AGA is also unable to justify the same. 7. Under the said circumstances, relying upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 and this Court in WP No.3597/2018, the said unreasonable delay cannot be justified. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned orders passed by respondent no.3 and respondent no.2. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0