- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010045032025 NC: 2026:KHC:39906 WP No. 2225 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. 2225 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: RAMAPPA S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, SANTHEBENNUR VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK - 577 213. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARCHANA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANGERE DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HONNALLI SUB -DIVISION, HONNALLI - 577 217 3. THE TAHSILDAR, CHANNAGIRI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK - 577 001 4. T.M. BASAVARAJAIAHA SINCE DEAD BY L.RS MALLIKARJUNAIAHA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, SANTHEBENNUR VILLAGE, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010045032025 NC: 2026:KHC:39906 WP No. 2225 of 2025 CHANNAGIRI TALUK - 577 213 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. S.B. HALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 09.01.2025 IN FILE NO.PTCL/CR-06/2024-25 VIDE ANNEXURE- B AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP 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 conveyed in favour of the father of the petitioner in the year 1960. It is the contention of the petitioner that it was a granted land, though the record reveals that the same has been allotted at an upset price. It is submitted that the land was sold in the year 1989 and an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act') was made by the petitioner in the year 2022. Respondent No.2 - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010045032025 NC: 2026:KHC:39906 WP No. 2225 of 2025 - the Assistant Commissioner has allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, father of respondent No.4 has preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner which has also been allowed and the order of respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner has been set aside. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. It is seen from the impugned order that the same has been allowed on the ground that the land is not a granted land, but was given to the father of the petitioner in a public auction at an upset price. Hence, respondent No.1 has concluded that the provision of the PTCL Act is not applicable. 3. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 justifies the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate supports the contention of the petitioner and - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010045032025 NC: 2026:KHC:39906 WP No. 2225 of 2025 submits that it has to be considered as a granted land because the price, at which it was allotted to the father of the petitioner, is a nominal price. 5. The questions that arise for consideration in the instant writ petition is, whether the land has to be considered as a granted land or a land purchased in a public auction for valuable consideration and also whether there is any inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in preferring an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 6. The records do not clearly indicate whether the land is a granted land or a land which was purchased for a valuable consideration in a public auction by the father of the petitioner. However, it is seen that the land was granted in favour of the father of the petitioner in the year 1960. The land was sold in the year 1989 and an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been made only in the year 2022, after a lapse of 33 years. The delay - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010045032025 NC: 2026:KHC:39906 WP No. 2225 of 2025 has not been satisfactorily explained. Under the said circumstances, it has to be considered as 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 original grantee/his legal heirs. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order will have to be sustained and accordingly, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37