- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35816 WP No. 20687 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 20687 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: SRI. S. RAVIKUMAR S/O SRINIVAS AGE: 47 R/AT BANNIKUPPE VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. GIRIJA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA - 562 159. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA - 562 159. 3. THE TAHASILDHAR, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA - 562 159. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35816 WP No. 20687 of 2025 4. SRI. VENKATACHALAPATHI, S/O NANJAPPA, AGE 75 YEARS, R/AT DODDAHOSAHALLI, PURVAVARA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA N, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SATISH M. DODDAMANI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. K.P. BHUVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OF ORDER DATED 26.06.2025 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF RAMANAGARA IN PTCL NO.12/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-O AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER The petitioner claims to be the legal representative of the original grantee. It is submitted that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Community. It is - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35816 WP No. 20687 of 2025 contented that the land was originally granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1962. It was sold in the year 1994. Thereafter, for the first time, 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') was made before respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2008. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the application and ordered for resumption and restoration of the land in favour of the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4 preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner, who, on the ground that the documents produced gave rise to a doubt that the land may be a Hiduvali land, has set aside the order passed by respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner and has remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. Aggrieved by the same, the legal representative of the grantee has preferred this writ petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35816 WP No. 20687 of 2025 2. The case of the petitioner is that the land is a granted land and respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner committed an error in remanding the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner instead of upholding his order and dismissing the appeal. It is also contented that there was an inordinate delay on the part of respondent No.4 in approaching respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner and the delay of 15 years should not have been condoned by respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner. On the said ground, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 3. The learned Additional Government Advocate as well as the learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.4 justifies the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Perusal of the records reveals that respondent No.4 was placed ex-parte in the proceedings before respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner. Hence, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35816 WP No. 20687 of 2025 contention of respondent No.4 about the delay in filing the appeal before respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner has been accepted by him and the appeal has been entertained. No fault can be found in respect of the said action of respondent No.1. 5. Insofar as it relates to whether the land is a Hiduvali land or a granted land, an affidavit of the jurisdictional respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner has been filed by the learned Additional Government Advocate and it is averred that the land is a Hiduvali land and not a grant land. Further, even assuming that the land is a granted land and not a Hiduvali land, there has been an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in challenging the same. The land has been granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1962. The sale was made in the year 1994 and the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was made for the first time in the year 2008 and the inordinate delay of 14 years has not been explained by the petitioner. Under the said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35816 WP No. 20687 of 2025 circumstances, respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner has merely set aside the order passed by respondent No.2 and has remanded the matter back to respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. I do not see any error in the same. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is hereby dismissed, with a direction to respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and while deciding the issue, he will also decide as to whether the land is a granted land or a Hiduvali land, whether an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was made within a reasonable period. ii. The parties are given liberty to take up all the contentions before respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35816 WP No. 20687 of 2025 iii. The parties shall appear before respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner on 18.08.2026 at 3.00 p.m., without further notice. iv. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21