- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010538242013 NC: 2026:KHC:39070 WP No. 4691 of 2013 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. 4691 OF 2013 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: SRI. KAVERAPPA S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RA/T BASAPURA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE, PIN-560100. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. LOKESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010538242013 NC: 2026:KHC:39070 WP No. 4691 of 2013 4. SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O SEEKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, KEMPUDOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE-562107. 5. SMT. KAVERAMMA D/O SRI. SEEKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT CHONDAPURA VILLAGE, HOSUR TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI TAMILNADU. 6. SMT. MUNILAKSHMI D/O SRI. SEEKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 7. SMT. MAHADEVI SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS A) SRI. GANESAN FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, AGEDA BOUT 40 YEARS, B) BABY BANUSHREE, D/O SRI. GANESAN, AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS, SINCE MINOR, REPTD. BY HER FATHER / NATURAL GUARDIAN, SRI. GANESAN BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NADU SOODAPURAM, BALATHUR, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010538242013 NC: 2026:KHC:39070 WP No. 4691 of 2013 BAGALUR FIRKA, HOSUR TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. 8. SRI. MURTHY S/O SRI. SEEKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 9. SRI. SEEKAPPA S/O MUNI VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, NOS.5 TO 7 AND 8 AND 9 ARE RESIDING AT KEMPUDOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE-562 107. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. H.S. KIRAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6 AND R9; SRI. M.G. RAVISHA, ADVOCATE FOR R8; R7(A) SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; R7(B) MINOR REPRESENTED BY R7(A)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 15.09.2012, IN NO.SC.ST(A)153/2009-10 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC., - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010538242013 NC: 2026:KHC:39070 WP No. 4691 of 2013 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 ORAL ORDER The land which is the subject matter of the writ petition was granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1978. He belonged to the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe Community. He sold the land in the year 1994 after the non-alienation period was over, but without obtaining the necessary permission from the State, thereby in violation of Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act'). For the first time, the challenge was made by filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act by the legal representatives of the original grantee in the year 2007. Respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner has - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010538242013 NC: 2026:KHC:39070 WP No. 4691 of 2013 dismissed the petition on the ground that no documents were produced by the legal representatives of the grantee to show that it was a grant. However, respondent No.3 - the Deputy Commissioner has reversed the same and ordered for resumption and restoration of the land in favour of the original grantee / his legal heirs. Aggrieved by it, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the land was sold in the year 1994 and the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act is filed in the year 2007, after a lapse of more than 13 years. It is submitted that the said delay is unexplained and has to be considered as unreasonable. In spite of it, respondent No.3 - the Deputy Commissioner has allowed the petition and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 3. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate as well as the learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of the original grantee justify the - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010538242013 NC: 2026:KHC:39070 WP No. 4691 of 2013 impugned order and pray for dismissal of the writ petition. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of the original grantee that one of the legal representatives, who had preferred the application was only 18 years and that he filed it immediately after attaining majority. Hence, there is no delay in filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 4. The question that arises for consideration is, whether there is any unreasonable delay on the part of the legal representatives of the original grantee in filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 5. Admittedly, the land was sold in the year 1994 after the lapse of the non-alienation period. The only violation is that the necessary permissions from the State have not been obtained. It is not the case of the respondents that the sale was undervalued or was without valuable consideration. The learned Additional Government - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010538242013 NC: 2026:KHC:39070 WP No. 4691 of 2013 Advocate is unable to answer how the State would have refused permission if an application were to have been made by the purchaser and the vendor at the time of executing the sale deed. 6. Even otherwise, there is an inordinate delay of 13 years in challenging the sale which has not been satisfactorily explained. Though One of the legal representative who preferred an application, however attained majority only shortly before filing the application, but there were other legal representatives of the grantee, who also have preferred the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, who had attained majority much earlier. 7. It is not the case of respondents that they do not have the knowledge of the sale. It is a case where the grantee's families has enjoyed the fruits of the sale and again have tried to challenge the same by filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act belatedly. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010538242013 NC: 2026:KHC:39070 WP No. 4691 of 2013 8. As the delay of more than 13 years in challenging the sale by filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act is unexplained, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the same has to be considered unreasonable. On the said ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 9. 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, has held that any 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. ii. The impugned order bearing Case No.SC.ST.(A) 153/2009-10 dated 15.09.2012 passed by - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010538242013 NC: 2026:KHC:39070 WP No. 4691 of 2013 respondent No.3 - the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure - H to the writ petition is hereby set aside. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25