- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010122382025 NC: 2026:KHC:41549 WP No. 5392 of 2025 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. 5392 OF 2025 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: 1. PUTTAMMA W/O BASAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. MANI W/O MANJUANTH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 3. JAYAMMA W/O LATE REVANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 4. HEMAVATHI W/O SOMASHEKARA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS ALL ARE R/O KAVALIKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ALUR TALUK HASSAN DIST-573 201 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTEMENT M.S.BUILDING Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010122382025 NC: 2026:KHC:41549 WP No. 5392 of 2025 BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAKALESHAPURA SUB DIVISION SAKALESHAPURA HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573 201 4. RANGASWAMY S/O LATE TIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEASR R/O KAVALIKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ALUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SATHISH D.J, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4 -[ABSENT]) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTIONS OR ORDER QUASHING THE ANNEURE-L THAT IS ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DIST. HASSAN IN CASE NO.PTCL.06/2024-25 DATED 31.12.2024, CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 FOR RESTORATION OF LAND, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010122382025 NC: 2026:KHC:41549 WP No. 5392 of 2025 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 1960. He belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. The land was sold in the year 1963. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act') came into force on 01.01.1979. Respondent no.4 is the legal representative of the original grantee. For the first time, an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act challenging the sale was filed in the year 2023. Respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner has dismissed the said application. The appeal filed by respondent no.4 against the said order of Assistant Commissioner has been allowed by respondent no.1-Deputy Commissioner and ordered for resumption and restoration of the land concerned in favour of the legal representative of the original grantee. Aggrieved by the same, legal representatives of the purchaser have preferred the present writ petition is filed. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010122382025 NC: 2026:KHC:41549 WP No. 5392 of 2025 2. The case of the petitioners is that, an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been filed after an unreasonable delay of 60 years from the date of sale and about 44 years from the date on which the PTCL Act came into force and the said delay has not been satisfactorily explained. Respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner has rightly dismissed the application, however, respondent no.3-Deputy Commissioner has erroneously reversed the order passed by respondent no.2. On the said ground, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 3. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 is absent. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate justifies the impugned order 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 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010122382025 NC: 2026:KHC:41549 WP No. 5392 of 2025 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 becomes fatal to an application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 7. Admittedly, the sale was effected in the year 1963. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed only in the year 2023, after a lapse of 60 years from the date of sale and about 44 years from the date on which the PTCL Act came into force. The said delay has not been satisfactorily explained by respondent no.4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the same has to be held as unreasonable. Respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner has rightly dismissed the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, however, respondent no.3-Deputy Commissioner has committed an error by allowing the appeal filed by the legal representative of the original grantee. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. Hence, the following: - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010122382025 NC: 2026:KHC:41549 WP No. 5392 of 2025 ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned order dated 31.12.2024 bearing no.¦n¹J¯ï:06/2024-25 passed by respondent no.3-Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-L to the writ petition is hereby set aside. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48