- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010076832026 NC: 2026:KHC:47023 WP No. 3093 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.3093 OF 2026 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. MUDLAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O. K.Y. YALLAPPA, R/O. MALAHALU VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. IRFANA NAZEER, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RANGANATH R. PATEL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE-577001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HONNALI SUB-DIVISION, Digitally signed by K M SOMASHEKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010076832026 NC: 2026:KHC:47023 WP No. 3093 of 2026 HONNALI-577217 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 4. SHRI. RUDRESH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O. THIPPABHOVI, R/O. VEERAPURA VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA., FOR R.1 TO R.3; SRI. C.S. DWARAKANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R.4.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2026 (DIGITALLY SIGNED ON 29.01.2026) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE NO.PTCL/13/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2025 (DIGITALLY SIGNED ON 30.05.2025) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN CASE NO.PTCL/61/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-B, 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 - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010076832026 NC: 2026:KHC:47023 WP No. 3093 of 2026 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 1977. In violation of the condition prescribed under Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short “the PTCL Act”), the same was sold in the year 1996. Presently, petitioner is the owner of the property. For the first time, in the year 2016, an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed by the legal representative of the original grantee. The said application came to be rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. On an appeal, the matter came to be remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. Again, the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the application. Again the matter came to be remanded back on an appeal by the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner has allowed the said application. In the appeal filed by the petitioner herein the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the said order. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010076832026 NC: 2026:KHC:47023 WP No. 3093 of 2026 2. The case of the petitioner is that there has been an inordinate delay on the part of the legal representative of the original grantee in making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 does not dispute the aforementioned facts. However, he seeks time to file his objections. As respondent No.4 is not disputing the aforementioned facts, this Court is of the opinion that no further time needs to be granted to respondent no.4 to file his objections. 4. Learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 justify the impugned orders and pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Admittedly, the land was sold in the year 1996 and an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act came to be filed in the year 2016 after a delay of around 20 years. The said delay has not been satisfactorily explained and under the circumstances, it has to be considered unreasonable. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010076832026 NC: 2026:KHC:47023 WP No. 3093 of 2026 6. The 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 if there is an unreasonable delay in challenging the sale, it becomes fatal to the application made under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 7. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 29.05.2025 passed by respondent no.3 bearing No.PTCL/61/2024 vide Annexure-B to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (ii) The impugned order dated 22.01.2026 passed by respondent no.2 bearing No.PTCL/13/2025 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (iii) The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act filed by respondent no.4 before respondent no.3 is hereby dismissed; (iv) It is hereby ordered that status quo ante in respect of the revenue records and possession - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010076832026 NC: 2026:KHC:47023 WP No. 3093 of 2026 of the property prior to making of the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act shall be restored; (v) The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45