- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010060152024 NC: 2026:KHC:44344 WP No. 4274 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 4274 OF 2024 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. T.V. KRISHNA REDDY S/O VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT Y. HOSKOTA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT 563 135. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHARA REDDY K.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOALR DISTRICT ZILLADALITHA BHAVAN NEAR JALALPPA MEDICAL COLLEGE NH-75 MULABAGAL ROAD KOLAR-563 103. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR-563 101. 3. RADHAMMA D/O LATE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT KRISHNAMMA-HIOSAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010060152024 NC: 2026:KHC:44344 WP No. 4274 of 2024 CHINTAMANI TALUK-563 135. FORMERLY RESIDENT AT YELAVAKUNTE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135. 4. THE TAHSILDAR SRINIVASAPURA TALUK MINI VIDHANASOUDHA SRINIVASAPURA-563 135. 5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1, R2, R4 AND R5; SRI. S.VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE THE WRIT ORDER TO DECLARE THAT, THE PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION SECRETARIAT NOTIFICATION NO.DPAL 25 SHASANA 2023, BENGALURU DATED 27.07.2023 BY AMENDED TO THE SECTION 5(1)(c) AND (d) OF THE KARNATAKA SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) AMENDED KARNATAKA ACT NO.30/2023 DATED 27.7.2023) IS IMPROPER, UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ULTRA VIRES TO THE PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA VIDE PUBLIC POLICY AND THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION COPY OF THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DOCUMENT IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-L AND 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: KAHC010060152024 NC: 2026:KHC:44344 WP No. 4274 of 2024 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 1979. He belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. The land was sold in the year 1997. 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.3 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 2014. Respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner allowed the said application. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order of Assistant Commissioner has been dismissed by respondent no.1-Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been filed after an unreasonable delay of 17 years from the date of sale and the said delay has - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010060152024 NC: 2026:KHC:44344 WP No. 4274 of 2024 not been satisfactorily explained. On the said ground, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 3. In the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, he has challenged the constitutional validity of the amendment made to Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2023. However, he submits that he does not press for the same. His submission is placed on record. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate justify the impugned orders and pray 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 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 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010060152024 NC: 2026:KHC:44344 WP No. 4274 of 2024 becomes fatal to an application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 7. Admittedly, the sale was effected in the year 1997. The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed only in the year 2014, after a lapse of 17 years from the date of sale. The said delay has not been satisfactorily explained by respondent no.3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the same has to be held as unreasonable. Respondent nos.1 and 2 have committed an error by passing the impugned orders. Accordingly, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 8. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned order dated 02.03.2023 bearing no.J¯ï.J£ï.r/J¸ï¹ì.J¸ï.n/²æÃ/19/2014-15 passed by respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-G to the writ petition is hereby set aside; - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010060152024 NC: 2026:KHC:44344 WP No. 4274 of 2024 (iii) The impugned order dated 22.09.2023 bearing no.¦.n.¹.J¯ï 07/2023 passed by respondent no.1- Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-K to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (iv) The application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act by respondent no.3 before respondent no.2 is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38