- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010221162025 NC: 2026:KHC:39175 WP No. 10879 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 10879 OF 2025 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VENKATAMMA, W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 2. SRI. MUNIYAPPA, S/O LATE AVANI MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT YADAROORU VILLAGE, YALDURU HOBLI, SRINIVISAPURA TALUK, KOLARA DISTRICT - 563 135. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. H.MOHAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563 101. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB DIVISION, KOLAR - 563 101. 3. SRI.NARAYANASWAMY, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010221162025 NC: 2026:KHC:39175 WP No. 10879 of 2025 AGED 60 YEARS, YADAROORU VILLAGE, YALDURU HOBLI, SRINIVISAPURA TALUK, KOLARA DISTRICT - 560 135. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.H.M.RAJASHEKARA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2023 IN NO.LND/SCST/61/2011-12 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-B 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 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 1941. He belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Community. He sold the land in the year 1953 in violation of the permanent non-alienation clause as per the terms of the grant. However, the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('PTCL' Act) came into - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010221162025 NC: 2026:KHC:39175 WP No. 10879 of 2025 force on 01.01.1979. For the first time, a challenge was made under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, in the year 2011. The Assistant Commissioner has allowed the application. The appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the land was sold in the year 1953 and by 1979, the date, on which the Act came into force, the purchaser had perfected his title in respect of the land by way of right to prescription/adverse possession. It is further submitted that PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979 and as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in MANCHEGOWDA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS 1, if a purchaser has perfected his title by way of prescription, when sale is in violation of Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act, then in that event, the sale cannot be set aside. It is further contended that, even otherwise, there has been an inordinate delay of 32 years in filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, from the date of coming into force of 1 (1984) 3 SCC 301 - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010221162025 NC: 2026:KHC:39175 WP No. 10879 of 2025 the PTCL Act, which becomes fatal to the case of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Inspite of that, the impugned orders are passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Hence, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed as prayed for. 3. Per contra, the contesting respondent as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate justifies the impugned orders and pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The question that arises for consideration is, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, whether the petitioner have perfected their title by way of prescription or whether there has been an unreasonable delay on the part of the legal representative of the original grantee in approaching the Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 5. Admittedly, the grant was made in the year 1941 with a permanent non alienation clause. However, in violation of the said condition, the land has been transferred in favour of the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010221162025 NC: 2026:KHC:39175 WP No. 10879 of 2025 purchaser in the year 1953. PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. 6. Section 4 (1) of the PTCL Act, reads as under: "4. Prohibition of transfer of granted lands.-(1) Notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of this Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant, or sub-section (2) shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer". 7. The Apex Court in MANCHEGOWDA AND OTHERS' case (SUPRA), has upheld the provisions of PTCL Act. However, in paragraph 15, it has been held that, "if the purchaser has perfected his title by way of prescription of time or otherwise, then in that event, the sale cannot be challenged". Para-15 reads as under: "15. Any person who acquires such granted land by transfer from the original grantee in breach of the condition relating to prohibition on such transfer must necessarily be presumed to be aware of the prohibition - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010221162025 NC: 2026:KHC:39175 WP No. 10879 of 2025 imposed on the transfer of such granted land. Anybody who acquires such granted land in contravention of the prohibition relating to transfer of such granted land cannot be considered to be a bona fide purchaser for value; and every such transferee acquires to his knowledge only a voidable title to the granted land. The title acquired by such transfer is defeasible and is liable to be defeated by an appropriate action taken in this regard. If the Legislature under such circumstances seek to intervene in the interests of these weaker sections of the community and choose to substitute a speedier and cheaper method of recovery of these granted lands which were otherwise liable to be resumed through legal process, it cannot, in our opinion, be said that any vested rights of the transferees are affected. Transferees of granted lands with full knowledge of the legal position that the transfers made in their favour in contravention of the terms of grant or any law, rule or regulation governing such grant are liable to be defeated in law, cannot and do not have in law or equity, a genuine or real grievance that their defeasible title in such granted lands so transferred is, in fact, being defeated and they are being dispossessed of such lands from which they were in law liable to be dispossessed by process of law. The position will, however, be somewhat different where the transferees have acquired such granted lands not in violation of any term of the grant or any law regulating such grant as also where any transferee who may have acquired a defeasible title in such granted lands by the transfer thereof in contravention of the terms of the grant - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010221162025 NC: 2026:KHC:39175 WP No. 10879 of 2025 or any law regulating such grant has perfected his title by prescription of time or otherwise. We shall consider such cases later on. We shall consider such cases later on. But where the transferee acquires only a defeasible title liable to be defeated in accordance with law, avoidance of such defeasible title which still remains liable to be defeated in accordance with law at the date of commencement of the Act and recovery of possession of such granted land on the basis of the provisions contained in Section 4 and Section 5 of the Act cannot be said to be constitutionally invalid and such a provision cannot be termed as unconscionable, unjust and arbitrary. The first two contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are, therefore, overruled." 8. In the instant case, the cause of action arose for the legal representative of the original grantee only upon coming into force of PTCL Act, that is on 01.01.1979. The sale has taken place in the year 1953. The grant was not a conditional grant where the State reserved any right on the property concerned. But absolutely granted in favour of the grantee only with the permanent non alienation clause. Under the circumstances, it has to be considered that the purchaser has perfected his title by way of right to prescription/adverse possession. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010221162025 NC: 2026:KHC:39175 WP No. 10879 of 2025 9. Section 4(2) of PTCL Act, which mandates prior permission of the Government to be taken for transfer of granted land is applicable only prospectively and it does not pertain to transactions which have taken place prior to coming into course of PTCL Act. 10. Even otherwise, there is an unreasonable delay on the part of the legal representative of the original grantee in making an application under Section 5 of the Act. For the first time, the application has been made before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2011. There has been a delay of 32 years in making the said application after PTCL Act came into force. The said delay is unexplained. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the same has to be considered as unreasonable. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Hence, the following: ORDER i) Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 17.08.2023 bearing No.LND/SCST/61/2011-12 passed by respondent - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010221162025 NC: 2026:KHC:39175 WP No. 10879 of 2025 No.2-Assistant Commissioner, vide Annexure-B to the writ petition is hereby set aside. iii) The impugned order dated 12.12.2024 bearing No.PTCL/22/2024 passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, vide Annexure-D to the writ petition is hereby set aside. iv) The application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act by respondent No.3 stands dismissed. Consequently, the State Authorities are directed to change the revenue entries into the name of the present purchaser. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55