- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010358192026 NC: 2026:KHC:41672 WP No. 16290 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.16290 OF 2026 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: MR. I.J.J REBELLO S/O LATE S.B.P REBELLO AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS R/AT DODDANAGUDDA ESTATE HANDI POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577 111 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATH PRASAD H.N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT CHIKKAMAGALURU- 577 101 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU SUB-DIVISION CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101 Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010358192026 NC: 2026:KHC:41672 WP No. 16290 of 2026 4. THE TAHASILDAR CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 101 5. SRI. LAKSHMAN S/O BOOTAIAH R/AT BALEHALLI VILLAGE, HANDI POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 111 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. JAYA KIRTHI M.C., ADVOCATE FOR R5[VC]) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12-05-2026 PASSED IN PTCL/46/2025 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F, PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 HEREIN AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE ORDER DATED 31-07-2025, PASSED IN PTCL/26/2024, PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALURU PRODUCED AT ANNX-E IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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 - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010358192026 NC: 2026:KHC:41672 WP No. 16290 of 2026 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, as he belonged to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. There was a condition that the land should not be alienated for a period of 15 years. The land was sold in the year 1974 i.e., after a lapse of 15 years. The petitioner is the present owner of the land. The legal representative of the original grantee has 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 for the first time in the year 2006. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner has rejected the same. Thereafter, on an appeal filed by respondent No.5 before respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner against the said order, the matter was remanded back by the Deputy Commissioner to the Assistant Commissioner. Again, the Assistant Commissioner has rejected the application. The same has been challenged before the Deputy Commissioner, who in turn has remanded the matter back to the Assistant - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010358192026 NC: 2026:KHC:41672 WP No. 16290 of 2026 Commissioner. Again, the Assistant Commissioner has rejected the application on the ground that the land has been sold after the non-alienation period. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.5 preferred an appeal before respondent No.2. However, respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner has allowed the appeal and ordered for restoration of the land in favour of the legal representative of the original grantee. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the land has been sold after the expiry of the non-alienation period and prior to the PTCL Act coming into force. Under the circumstances, it is submitted that there is no violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act and the impugned order is erroneous. 3. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 and learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 4 justify the impugned order and pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Admittedly, the land was granted in the year 1955 with a condition that the same should not be alienated for a period of 15 years. After the lapse of 15 years, in the year 1974, the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010358192026 NC: 2026:KHC:41672 WP No. 16290 of 2026 same has been sold. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. As per Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act, any granted land, if sold in violation of the non-alienation clause, even if it is prior to coming into force of the PTCL Act, the said sale will not be valid. However, in this case, the transaction is not hit by Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act, as the sale has admittedly taken place after the lapse of the non-alienation period. Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act is not applicable as the same is prospective. Thus, there is no illegality in the transfer of land. 5. Even otherwise, there has been an inordinate delay on the part of the legal representative of the grantee in challenging the alienation, which is unreasonable and is not permissible. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order bearing No.PTCL/46/2025 dated 12.05.2026 passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner (vide Annexure-F to the writ petition) is hereby set aside. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62