- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010020582025 NC: 2026:KHC:39172 WP No. 1072 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. 1072 OF 2025 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. SINDHU J.N., D/O LATE MR. J. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 2. MR. SAGAR J.N. @ SAGAR JOGHI NAGARAJU, S/O LATE MR. J. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, THE PETITIONERS ARE RESIDENTS OF, NO.124/44/45, 20TH MAIN, KIDNEY FOUNDATION HOSPITAL, PADMANABHANAGARA, BIDARAHALLI, BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 070. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MILESH ARROL NORONHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PANEESH KUMAR B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT OFFICE BUILDING, CHAMARAJAPURAM, MYSORE - 570 005. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010020582025 NC: 2026:KHC:39172 WP No. 1072 of 2025 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GIRIBHOVI PALYA, SIDDARTHANAGAR, MYSURU, KARNATAKA - 570 011. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, MYSURU TALUK, OFFICE AT MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, NAZARBAD, MYSURU - 570 010. 4. MR. HANUMANTHAIAH, S/O RACHAIAH, AGED ABOUT -- YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.37, 2ND CROSS, 3RD STAGE, GOKULAM-B BLOCK, MYSURU - 570 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SMT.S.VIJAYAKUMARI, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.06.2021 PASSED BY THE R-1 i.e., ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MYSURU IN CASE NO. PTCL 13/2011 VIDE ANNX-A AND CONFIRMED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSURU i.e. THE R-2 VIDE ORDERS DATED 08.09.2023 IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010020582025 NC: 2026:KHC:39172 WP No. 1072 of 2025 PETITIONERS HEREIN VIDE PTCL NO.14/2021-22 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 1955. He belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. There was a condition in the grant that the land should not be alienated for a period of 15 years. However, the land was sold in the year 1965. Presently, the petitioners are the owner of the property. The legal representative of the original grantee, for the first time, preferred an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('PTCL' Act) in the year 2011. The Assistant Commissioner has allowed the application. The appeal has been dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010020582025 NC: 2026:KHC:39172 WP No. 1072 of 2025 2. The case of the petitioners is that there has been an inordinate delay on the part of the legal representative of the original grantee in making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, which becomes fatal to his case. 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 OTHERS1, 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. 3. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as the contesting respondent justify 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 petitioners have perfected their title by way of prescription or whether there has been an unreasonable delay on the part of 1 (1984) 3 SCC 301 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010020582025 NC: 2026:KHC:39172 WP No. 1072 of 2025 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 1955 with the condition that the land should not be transferred for a period of 15 years. However, in violation of the said condition, the land has been transferred in favour of the purchaser in the year 1965. 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, - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010020582025 NC: 2026:KHC:39172 WP No. 1072 of 2025 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 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 - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010020582025 NC: 2026:KHC:39172 WP No. 1072 of 2025 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 or any law regulating such grant has perfected his title by prescription of time or otherwise. 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 having taken place in the year 1965, more than 13 years had since lapsed. The grant was not a conditional grant where the State reserved any right on the property concerned. But absolutely - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010020582025 NC: 2026:KHC:39172 WP No. 1072 of 2025 granted in favour of the grantee only with the condition that it shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years. Under the circumstances, it has to be considered that the purchaser has perfected his title by way of prescription/adverse possession. 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 force 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: - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010020582025 NC: 2026:KHC:39172 WP No. 1072 of 2025 ORDER i) Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 28.06.2021 bearing No.PTCL/13/2011 passed by respondent No.1- Assistant Commissioner, Mysore, vide Annexure-A to the writ petition is hereby set aside. iii) The impugned order dated 08.09.2023 bearing No.PTCL/14/2021-22 passed by respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner, Mysore, vide Annexure-B to the writ petition is hereby set aside. iv) The application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act by respondent No.4 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.: 45