- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010185062025 NC: 2026:KHC:39803 WP No. 7956 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 7956 OF 2025 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. L. BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA R/O KOTHANUR VILLAGE PALYA HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 440. 2. KAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE VENKATA KAMEGOWDA 3. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O LATE VENKATA KAMEGOWDA PETITIONER NOS.2 AND 3 ARE R/OF SUNDARAHALLI VILLAGE PALYA HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 440. 4. DAMODAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O NATARAJU R/O KOTHANUR VILLAGE Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010185062025 NC: 2026:KHC:39803 WP No. 7956 of 2025 R/O BANNUR VILLAGE, PALYA HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 440. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT CHAMARAJNAGAR-571 313. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLLEGAL SUB-DIVISION, KOLLEGAL CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT. 4. THE THASILDAR KOLLEGAL TALUK, KOLLEGAL CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT. 5. SMT.NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O LATE PRABHU KUMAR (DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF HANUMAIAH) 6. KUMARI MONIKA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS D/O LATE PRABHU KUMAR 7. PRADEEP - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010185062025 NC: 2026:KHC:39803 WP No. 7956 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O LATE PRABHU KUMAR RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT DOOR NO.4/71 DIDADAKERI BEEDHI BHEEMA NAGAR, KOLLEGAL TOWN CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT-571 440. 8. SMT.NAYANA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS W/O KIRAN KUMAR D/O LATE PRABHU KUMAR R/O KESTUR VILLAGE YELANDUR TALUK CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT-571 441. 9. MARTHAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRs SUNDARA @ HARSHA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O LATE HANUMAIAH AND LATE MARTHAMMA 10. SATISH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O LATE HANUMALAH AND LATE MARTHAMMA 11. JAYARAJ AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O LATE HANUMAIAH AND LATE MARTHAMMA - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010185062025 NC: 2026:KHC:39803 WP No. 7956 of 2025 12. VIJAY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O LATE HANUMAIAH AND LATE MARTHAMMA 13. KUMARI ANANDA KUMARI @ PREMANANDA KUMARI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS D/O LATE HANUMAIAH AND LATE MARTHAMMA 14. SMT.NADIYA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS W/O MANJUNATH D/O LATE HANUMAIAH AND LATE MARTHAMMA 15. SMT.PUSHPALATHA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS D/O LATE HANUMAIAH AND LATE MARTHAMMA RESPONDENT NOS.9 TO 15 ARE R/O DIDDAKERI BEEDHI BHEEMA NAGAR KOLLEGAL TOWN AND TALUK CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT-571 440. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. G.R.ANANTHASWAMY ALONG WITH SRI. SHEHINSHA ALI, ADVOCATES FOR R6 TO R15; R5 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010185062025 NC: 2026:KHC:39803 WP No. 7956 of 2025 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.03.2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.PTCL/04/2024-25 AT ANNEXURE-D AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 was granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1972. The same was sold in the year 1988. Petitioners are presently owners of a portion of the originally granted land. Respondent nos.5 to 15 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') Act was filed in the year 2019. Respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner has allowed the said application. The same has - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010185062025 NC: 2026:KHC:39803 WP No. 7956 of 2025 been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner-respondent no.2. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioners is that there has been an inordinate delay on part of the legal representatives of the original grantee in preferring an application before respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner and inspite of it, the impugned orders have been passed in their favour and the same are liable to be set aside. In addition to the said contention the petitioners also submit that, the grantee did not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community and he belonged to Christian community. On the said ground it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed as prayed for. 3. Per contra, the contesting respondents submit that the grantee belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. They further submit that in the light of Section 11 of the PTCL Act and also the amendment carried out of Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2023, irrespective of the delay they are entitled to maintain an application before the Assistant - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010185062025 NC: 2026:KHC:39803 WP No. 7956 of 2025 Commissioner. They justify the impugned orders and pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate also justifies the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Insofar as it relates to status of the parties is concerned, there is a disputed question of fact as to whether they belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. However, in my opinion, only on the ground of unreasonable delay on part of the legal representatives of the original grantee preferring the necessary application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 6. Admittedly, grant was in the year 1972. The entire land was sold in the year 1988 and an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been preferred only in the year 2019 after a delay of 31 years. Irrespective of Section 11 or Section 5 of the PTCL Act, 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 - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010185062025 NC: 2026:KHC:39803 WP No. 7956 of 2025 Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.3597/2018 have held that any unreasonable delay in preferring an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act is liable to be dismissed. Both the impugned orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner have been passed without taking this fact into consideration. The inordinate delay of 31 years has not been satisfactorily explained by the contesting respondents. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the same has to be considered as unreasonable. 7. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 06.03.2025 passed by respondent no.2 bearing no.¦.n.¹.J¯ï:04/2024-25 vide Annexure-D to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (ii) The impugned order dated 14.05.2024 passed by respondent no.3 bearing no.¦.n.¹.J¯ï:23/2019 vide Annexure-B to the writ petition is hereby set aside; - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010185062025 NC: 2026:KHC:39803 WP No. 7956 of 2025 (iii) The application made under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in respect of the land which is the subject matter of the writ petition, before respondent no.3 is hereby dismissed; (iv) Authorities are directed to restore status quo ante in respect of revenue records pertaining to the property, as it stood prior to initiation of proceedings under Section 5 of the PTCL Act; (v) The writ petition stands allowed accordingly; (vi) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18