- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010398802025 NC: 2026:KHC:43825 WP No. 18995 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.18995 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHANNAMALLEGOWDA S/O MADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 2. SRI. MAHADEVA, S/O MADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT VARAKODU VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK-570008. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. H.T. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE-570001. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010398802025 NC: 2026:KHC:43825 WP No. 18995 of 2025 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, REVENUE SUB-DIVISION, MYSORE -570001. 4. SRI. MAHESH, S/O LATE CHOWDAIAH, MAJOR, 5. SHRI. CHOWDAIAH, S/O LATE MALLAIAH, MAJOR, RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 BOTH ARE R/AT AMEDKAR BEEDI, VARAKODU VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK-570008. 6. VILLAGE ACCOUNT, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK-570008. 7. REVENUE INSPECTOR, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK-570008. 8. THASILDAR, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE-570008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA., FOR R.1 TO R.3; SRI. C.M. JAGADEESH AND SRI. NAGARAJU N.T., ADVOCATES FOR R.4 AND R.5.) - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010398802025 NC: 2026:KHC:43825 WP No. 18995 of 2025 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.07.2024 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DISTRICT-RESPONDENT NO.2 IN PTCL.NO.11/2020, VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2020 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HASSAN SUB-DIVISION RESPONDENT NO.3 IN PTCL.NO.14/2015, VIDE ANNEXURE-D, ETC. 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 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 1950. He belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. The land was sold in the year 1979. For the first time, an application was made under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act') in the year - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010398802025 NC: 2026:KHC:43825 WP No. 18995 of 2025 2014 by respondent no.4. Presently, the petitioners are the owners of the property concerned. Respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner has allowed the said application and ordered restoration of the said land to the legal heirs of the original grantee. Respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the appeal filed by petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioners is that, challenge to the sale has been made belatedly after an unreasonable delay of around 35 years and inspite of it, the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner have passed the impugned orders in favour of the legal representative of the original grantee. 3. Learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 justify the impugned orders and prays for the dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The only question that arises for consideration is, whether the challenge under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been made after an unreasonable delay. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010398802025 NC: 2026:KHC:43825 WP No. 18995 of 2025 5. 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 Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.3597/2018 have held that unreasonable delay in challenging the sale will become fatal to the application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 6. In the instant case, admittedly, there is a delay of around 35 years in challenging the sale. The delay is not explained satisfactorily by respondent no.4. Under the given facts and circumstances the case, the delay has to be considered unreasonable. 7. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 03.10.2020 passed by respondent no.3 bearing no.PTCL.No.14/2015 vide Annexure-D to the writ petition is hereby set aside; - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010398802025 NC: 2026:KHC:43825 WP No. 18995 of 2025 (ii) The impugned order dated 26.07.2024 passed by respondent no.2 bearing no.PTCL No.11/2020 vide Annexure-E to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (iii) The application filed by respondent no.4 under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before respondent no.3 is hereby dismissed; (iv) The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58