- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010095122024 NC: 2026:KHC:39647 WP No. 5577 of 2024 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. 5577 OF 2024 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: SRI D N NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE NAREPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT DODAMALADODDI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HEGDE RAMAKRISHNA S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563 101 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101 3. SRI. CHINNAIAH S/O LATE NADAPINA BHOVI, AGED MAJOR, 4. SRI. RAMESH C. S/O CHINNAIAH, AGED MAJOR, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010095122024 NC: 2026:KHC:39647 WP No. 5577 of 2024 THE RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE R/OF J THIMMASANDRA MAJARA, VADDARA COLONY, KASABA HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2 SRI. CHETAN N., ADVOCATE AND SRI. ESHWARAPPA H.N., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4 (ABSENT)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 18/01/2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR IN PTCL/29/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER DATED 17/08/2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION IN LND/SC.ST/39/2011-12, VIDE ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010095122024 NC: 2026:KHC:39647 WP No. 5577 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The land which is the subject matter of the writ petition was granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1965. He belonged to the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe Community. In the year 1995, there was a family partition and respondent No.3 got 1-00 Acre of land. Respondent No.4 is the son of respondent No.3. In the year 1999, respondent Nos.3, 4 and the other family members of respondent No.3 together sold the said 1 Acre of land in favour of the petitioner herein. In the year 2011, they have made 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') on the ground that the sale is in violation of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. Respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner has allowed the application and has ordered for resumption and restoration of the land in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4. The appeal filed - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010095122024 NC: 2026:KHC:39647 WP No. 5577 of 2024 against the said order has been dismissed by respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that though necessary permission under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act has not been obtained, there has been an inordinate delay of 12 years in challenging the sale, which has not been satisfactorily explained. This unreasonable delay has not been considered by both respondent Nos.2 and 1 while passing the impugned orders. On the said ground, he prays that the writ petition be allowed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 is absent. 4. The 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 has been any unreasonable delay on the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010095122024 NC: 2026:KHC:39647 WP No. 5577 of 2024 part of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in making the necessary application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 6. Admittedly, the land was sold in the year 1999 and the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act challenging the same has been filed in the year 2011, after an inordinate delay of 12 years. The said delay has not been satisfactorily explained. Under the circumstances, the said delay has to be considered unreasonable. In the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. 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, the unreasonable delay in making the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act becomes fatal. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is hereby allowed. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010095122024 NC: 2026:KHC:39647 WP No. 5577 of 2024 ii. The impugned order dated 17.08.2023 bearing Case No.ಎಎ/ಎ.ಎ/39/2011-12 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure - B to the writ petition is hereby set aside. iii. The impugned order dated 18.01.2024 bearing Case No. ...ಎ/29/2023 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure - A to the writ petition is hereby set aside. iv. The application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 before respondent No.2 stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26