Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 35469 (KAR)

GANAPPA SON OF LATE NARSA @ BABU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/1882/2016 · 2026-07-30

M I Arun

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010007942016 NC: 2026:KHC:39904 WP No. 1882 of 2016 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. 1882 OF 2016 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. GANAPPA SON OF LATE NARSA @ BABU SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1A. SMT. NARASI W/O. LATE GANAPPA AGED 66 YEARS 1B. CHANDRA S/O. LATE GANAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 1C. SMT. SAROJA D/O. LATE GANAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 1D. SHEKAR S/O. LATE GANAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS ALL ARE R/O. JANNADI NEAR DIPPU, SOWDA POST KUNDAPURA UDUPI - 576 222 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JEEVAN K., ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NO.1(A TO D)) Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010007942016 NC: 2026:KHC:39904 WP No. 1882 of 2016 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPAPRTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KUNDAPUR SUB DIVISION, KUNDAPUR - 576 001 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI - 576 101 4. KRISHNA SON OF NANDI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT YADTHADI VILLAGE & POST, UDUPI - 576 101. 5. BASAVA SON OF LATE SANKA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,F RESIDING AT ACHIADI VILLAGE POST MADHUVANA UDUPI - 576 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 R5 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010007942016 NC: 2026:KHC:39904 WP No. 1882 of 2016 QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 4.6.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 23.11.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-F. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 4.6.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-D ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 23.11.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-F. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER The land which is the subject matter of the writ petition was granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1960. The original grantee belonged to the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe Community. There was a condition that he should not alienate the property for a period of 15 years. The original grantee has sold the land in favour of respondent No.5 herein in the year 1974. Respondent No.5 has sold the said land in favour of one Sri.Ganapa in the year 1978 and the petitioners herein are the legal representative of the said deceased Ganapa. Respondent No.4 is said to be the legal heir of the original - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010007942016 NC: 2026:KHC:39904 WP No. 1882 of 2016 grantee. Admittedly, the first sale has been made within the non-alienation period. On 01.01.1979, the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act') came into force and as per Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act, any transfer made within the non-alienation period in respect of the granted land is liable to be set aside. However, respondent No.4 challenged the sale by making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act for the first time, in the year 2009. Respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner, on the ground that the land has been sold without obtaining the prior permission of the State Government, has passed an order in favour of respondent No.4 by allowing the application. The appeal preferred by the deceased father of the petitioners has been dismissed by respondent No.3 - the Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of petitioners is that, there has been an inordinate delay of 35 years in challenging the sale. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010007942016 NC: 2026:KHC:39904 WP No. 1882 of 2016 Ignoring the said fact, the impugned orders have been passed. Hence, they pray for allowing the writ petition. 3. Respondent No.5 though served has remained unrepresented. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 justifies the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The only question that arises for consideration is, whether there has been any unreasonable and inordinate delay on the part of respondent No.4 in preferring the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 6. Admittedly, the land was granted to the original grantee in the year 1960, it was sold in the year 1974 and the application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was made in the year 2009 and the Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The delay of 35 years from the date of sale - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010007942016 NC: 2026:KHC:39904 WP No. 1882 of 2016 and 30 years from the date of the Act coming into force has not been satisfactorily explained by respondent No.4. Under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the delay has to be considered unreasonable. 7. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 as well as the decision of this Court in R.Suresh Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.3597/2018, has held that any unreasonable delay in making the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act becomes fatal to the case of the original grantee and their legal heirs. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 04.06.2015 bearing No. ಎ ಆ : 26/2009-10 passed by - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010007942016 NC: 2026:KHC:39904 WP No. 1882 of 2016 respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure - D to the writ petition is hereby set aside. iii. The impugned order dated 23.11.2015 bearing Case No. ಎ ಎಆ 04/2015-16 passed by respondent No.3 - the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure - F to the writ petition is hereby set aside. iv. The application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act filed by respondent No.4 before respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner stands dismissed. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57