- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010316702025 NC: 2026:KHC:43178 WP No. 16123 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 16123 OF 2025 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. MR. PARASHURAM AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O SRI. DODABASAVAIAH MAIDANAHALLI VILLAGE ILWALA HOBLI MYSORE TALUK-571 130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. Y.K.NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE TALUK MYSORE-570 001. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSORE SUB DIVISION MYSORE TALUK MYSORE-570 001. 4. THE TAHSILDAR MYSORE TALUK Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010316702025 NC: 2026:KHC:43178 WP No. 16123 of 2025 MYSORE-570 001. 5. SMT. AMBIKA W/O SRI. MAHESH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.17 KANASU, K.R.S.ROAD MOGARAHALLI MANTI BELGOLA HOBLI SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK. 6. MR. SIDDARAJU S/O LATE KARIYAYAYYA 7. SMT. SANNAKALAMMA W/O LATE KARIYAYAYYA RESPONDENT NOS.6 AND 7 ARE R/AT HOUSE NO.420 S.C.COLONY HOSAHALLI VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK-571 606. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. ANIL KUMAR B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R7 [ABSENT]) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 01.04.2025 PASSED IN PTCL NO.9/2024 BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND ORDER DATED 07.12.2023 PASSED IN PTCL NO.14/2021 BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND REJECT THE PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 7 OR PASS OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS OR ISSUE NECESSARY DIRECTION AS DEEMED FIT BY THIS HON'BLE COURT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION WITH COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010316702025 NC: 2026:KHC:43178 WP No. 16123 of 2025 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 was granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1978. He belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. The grant was subject to a condition that the land should not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of grant. The land was sold in the year 2001 after the said non-alienation period was over. Respondent nos.5 to 7 are the legal representatives of the original grantee. 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 'PTCL Act') challenging the sale was filed in the year 2021. Respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner allowed the application on the ground that Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act was violated. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order of Assistant Commissioner has been - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010316702025 NC: 2026:KHC:43178 WP No. 16123 of 2025 dismissed by respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been filed after an unreasonable delay of 20 years from the date of sale and the said delay has not been satisfactorily explained. On the said ground, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 3. Learned counsel for respondent nos.5 to 7 is absent. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate justifies the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The only question that arises for consideration is whether there is any inordinate and unreasonable delay in filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 as well as the decision of this Court in the case of R.Suresh Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.3597/2018, have held that an unreasonable delay in challenging the sale - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010316702025 NC: 2026:KHC:43178 WP No. 16123 of 2025 becomes fatal to an application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 7. Admittedly, the sale was effected in the year 2001. The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed only in the year 2021, after a lapse of 20 years from the date of sale. The said delay has not been satisfactorily explained by respondent nos.5 to 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the same has to be held as unreasonable. Respondent nos.2 and 3 have committed an error by passing the impugned orders. Accordingly, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 8. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned order dated 07.12.2023 bearing no.¦.n.¹.J¯ï-14/2021 passed by respondent no.3- Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-E to the writ petition is hereby set aside; - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010316702025 NC: 2026:KHC:43178 WP No. 16123 of 2025 (iii) The impugned order dated 01.04.2025 bearing no.¦n¹J¯ï 09/2024 passed by respondent no.2- Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-H to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (iv) The application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act by respondent nos.5 to 7 before respondent no.3 is hereby dismissed. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51