- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010191772026 NC: 2026:KHC:40519 WP No. 8613 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.8613 OF 2026 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI V. MUNISHAMAPPA V @ MUNISHAMI S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT HODALAVADI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N. SATISH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-562101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR - 562101. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010191772026 NC: 2026:KHC:40519 WP No. 8613 of 2026 4. SRI NAGARAJ S/O VENKATESHAPPA R/AT HODALAVADI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK-563101. 5. SRI. NAGARAJ S/O LATE ERAGAPPA R/AT UPPAKUNTE VILLAGE SUGATUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK-563102. 6. SRI. ANJINAPPA S/O LATE MULUVAGALAPPA R/AT UPPAKUNTE VILLAGE SUGATUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK-563102. 7. SRI. NAGESH S/O LATE MULUVAGALAPPA R/AT UPPAKUNTE VILLAGE SUGATUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK-563102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA., FOR R.1 TO R.3; SRI. MAHESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.4 AND R.5; SRI. VIJAY SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R.6 AND R.7.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 23.02.2026 PASSED IN CASE NO.PTCL 199/2025 BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR THE RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN (ANNEXURE F) AND SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 23.10.2025 PASSED IN CASE NO.PTCL 74/2024 BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR THE RESPONDENT NO.3 HEREIN (ANNEXURE D) IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.93, MEASURING 2 ACRES 13 GUNTAS SITUATED AT HODALAVADI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT, ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010191772026 NC: 2026:KHC:40519 WP No. 8613 of 2026 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 ORAL ORDER 1. The land which is the subject matter of the writ petition is said to have been granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1941 on the ground that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. He has sold the same in the year 1954. Presently, the petitioner is the owner of the property. In the year 2024, for the first time, respondent Nos.4 to 7, claiming to be the legal representatives of the original grantee have preferred an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act') before respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner. By the impugned order (vide Annexure-D to the writ petition), the Assistant Commissioner has allowed the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, who in turn has dismissed - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010191772026 NC: 2026:KHC:40519 WP No. 8613 of 2026 the appeal by the impugned order (vide Annexure-F to the writ petition). Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the land itself is not a granted land. Even otherwise, it is submitted that the first sale was effected in the year 1954 and the PTCL Act came into force in the year 1979 and by way of adverse possession/prescription of time, the purchaser had perfected the title against the original grantee. Further, it is submitted that there has been an inordinate delay in preferring an application by respondent Nos.4 to 7 under Section 5 of the PTCL Act i.e., after a lapse of 45 years since the PTCL Act came into force. On the said ground, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned orders be set aside. 3. Per contra, the respondents justify the impugned orders and pray for dismissal of the writ petition. In addition to it, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 7 submit that the sale deed executed in the year 1954 is a fraud and the original grantee/his legal representatives never executed the sale deed. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010191772026 NC: 2026:KHC:40519 WP No. 8613 of 2026 4. Section 4 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. (2) No person shall, after the commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government. (3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to the sale of any land in execution of a decree or order of a civil court or of any award or order of any other authority." 5. Section 5 of the PTCL Act reads as under: "5. Resumption and restitution of granted lands.- (1) Where, on application by any interested person or on information given in writing by any person or suo-motu, and after such enquiry as he deems necessary, the Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010191772026 NC: 2026:KHC:40519 WP No. 8613 of 2026 the transfer of any granted land is null and void under sub-section (1) of section 4, he may,- (a) by order take possession of such land after evicting all persons in possession thereof in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that no such order shall be made except after giving the person affected a reasonable opportunity of being heard; (b) restore such land to the original grantee or his legal heir. Where it is not reasonably practicable to restore the land to such grantee or legal heir, such land shall be deemed to have vested in the Government free form all encumbrances. The Government may grant such land to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in accordance with the rules relating to grant of land. (c) notwithstanding anything contained in any law, there shall be no limitation of time to invoke the provisions of this Act. (d) the provisions of clause (c) shall apply to all cases pending before all the - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010191772026 NC: 2026:KHC:40519 WP No. 8613 of 2026 competent authorities and all Courts of Law adjudicating the cases under this section. (1-A) After an enquiry referred to in sub-section (1) the Assistant Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that transfer of any granted land is not null and void pass an order accordingly. (2) Subject to the orders of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A, any order passed under sub-section (1) and (1-A) shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law and no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of any proceeding taken or about to be taken by the Assistant Commissioner in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. (3) For the purposes of this section, where any granted land is in the possession of a person, other than the original grantee or his legal heir, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that such person has acquired the land by a transfer which is null and void under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 4." 6. Perusal of the aforementioned sections make it clear that the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act can be made only in respect of alleged transfer of lands in violation of the provisions of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. It does not - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010191772026 NC: 2026:KHC:40519 WP No. 8613 of 2026 contemplate an enquiry to be initiated by the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act, in respect of genuineness of the documents executed to transfer the ownership of the land. For that purpose, a person has to approach the Civil Court. 7. In the instant case, admittedly, there has been a deed of conveyance transferring the land in favour of the purchaser by the grantee/his legal representatives way back in the year 1954. Thereafter, the revenue documents have stood in the name of the purchaser, and presently, in the name of the petitioner, who is the owner of the property. This being the case, in the instant proceedings, one cannot consider the aspect as to whether the deed of conveyance executed in the year 1954 is valid or not. The proceedings continue on the assumption that the said deed has indeed been executed by the concerned persons. 8. Under the said circumstances, the questions that arise for consideration are whether the purchaser has perfected his title by way of adverse possession/title by prescription of time and - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010191772026 NC: 2026:KHC:40519 WP No. 8613 of 2026 whether there has been an inordinate delay on part of the legal representatives of the original grantee in filing an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 9. Admittedly, the sale was effected in the year 1954 and the PTCL Act came into force in the year 1979. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manchegowda and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (1984) 3 SCC 301, Section 4 of the PTCL Act does not come to the rescue of the original grantee or his legal representatives, if the purchaser has perfected his title by way of adverse possession or title by prescription due to lapse of time. In the instant case, there has been a lapse of 25 years from the date of purchase of the property till the date of PTCL Act coming into force. Under the said circumstances, it has to be held that the purchaser has perfected his title by way of adverse possession/title by prescription of time. Even otherwise, an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, has been made for the first time in the year 2024 after a lapse of 45 years since the PTCL Act came into force. The delay has to be considered unreasonable. As per the decision of the Hon'ble - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010191772026 NC: 2026:KHC:40519 WP No. 8613 of 2026 Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 and the decision of this Court in W.P.No.3597/2018, any unreasonable delay in making an application under Section 5 of the Act becomes fatal to it. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 10. Hence the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order bearing No.PTCL/74/2024 dated 23.10.2025 passed by respondent No.3- Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-D to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (ii) The impugned order bearing No.PTCL/199/2025 dated 23.02.2026 passed by respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-F to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (iii) The application filed by respondent Nos.4 to 7 under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before respondent No.3 is dismissed; (iv) It is needless to state that, if it is possible for the contesting respondents to challenge the - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010191772026 NC: 2026:KHC:40519 WP No. 8613 of 2026 sale deed executed in the year 1954 before an appropriate Civil Court, they are always at liberty to do so in accordance with law; (v) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52