- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010157032025 NC: 2026:KHC:47021 WP No. 6785 of 2025 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.6785 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. GUTTA VENKATESHWARALU S/O THRIPALLU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDENT NO.5, K. MUNISWAMAPPA CROSS, R.S. PALYA, KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 084. 2. SRI. KARRE NAGABHUSHANA RAO, S/O. KARRE SUBBARAYADU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF UNIT-514-1530, PARK AVENUE TORONTO, CANNADA, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. KARRE SUBBARAYADU, S/O. CHINNA NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDENT NO.23, MUNNEGOWDA CROSS, R.S. PALYA, KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 084. 3. SMT. N. SUSHEELA, W/O. N. VENKATESHWARALU, Digitally signed by K M SOMASHEKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010157032025 NC: 2026:KHC:47021 WP No. 6785 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDENT NO.191/5, M.S. NAGAR POST, SUBBAYANNA PALYA, BENGALURU-560 033. 4. SRI. G. SRINIVASALU, S/O. SHESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDENT NO.6, DR. KUVEMPU ROAD, R.S. PALYA, KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 084. 5. SRI. G. MANOHAR BABU, S/O. SRINIVASALU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDENT NO.6, DR. KUVEMPU ROAD, R.S. PALYA, KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560084. 6. SRI. G. KONDALAH, S/O. LATE G. NARASIMHALU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO.38/A, SATYAMURTHY ROAD, 4TH CROSS, VARSHA NO.6, DR. KUVEMPU ROAD, R.S. PALYA, KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 084. 7. MR. JOHN EBENEZER, S/O. P.S. RAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDENT NO.362, 1ST CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. A.C. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010157032025 NC: 2026:KHC:47021 WP No. 6785 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002. 4. SRI. S.R. AKHILESH, S/O. LATE S.M. RAVI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SULIKUNTE VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 0125. 5. SRI. C.H. GURUVAIAH, S/O.C.H. LAKSHMINARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 2ND CROSS, KULLAPPA CIRCLE, KAMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 084. 6. THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU-560 031. …RESPONDENTS [BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA., FOR R.1 TO R.3; - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010157032025 NC: 2026:KHC:47021 WP No. 6785 of 2025 SRI. V. SHIVAKUMAR ALONG WITH SRI. K. SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.4; SRI. K.C. SHANTA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.5 (ABSENT)] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING PROCEEDINGS NO.PTCL.91/2022 DATED 24.02.2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-L AND QUASH THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.DPAL 25 SHASANA 2023, BENGALURU, DATED 27.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND TO STRUCK DOWN OR READ DOWN CLAUSES (c) AND (d) OF SECTION 5(1) OF THE KARNATAKA SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) ACT, 1979 BY HOLDING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ONE, 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 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010157032025 NC: 2026:KHC:47021 WP No. 6785 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The land which is the subject matter of the petition was granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1949. He belonged to the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe community. He has sold the land in the year 1961. Presently, the petitioners are the owners of the property. For the first time, in the year 2018, 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), came to be filed. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the application. However, on an appeal, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the same and ordered restoration of the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioners is that, in spite of delay of 57 years from the date of the sale and 39 years from the date of Act coming into force, the Deputy Commissioner has erroneously allowed the appeal. On the said ground, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010157032025 NC: 2026:KHC:47021 WP No. 6785 of 2025 3. In the course of the arguments learned counsel for the petitioners 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. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 justify the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 is absent. 6. The only question that arises for consideration is whether there has been an inordinate and unreasonable delay on the part of the legal representatives of the original grantee in making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 7. Admittedly, the sale was made in the year 1961 and the PTCL Act came into force in the year 1979. The sale has been challenged belatedly only in the year 2018. The delay of 57 years from the date of sale and 39 years from the date of Act coming into force has not been satisfactorily explained by the - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010157032025 NC: 2026:KHC:47021 WP No. 6785 of 2025 legal representatives of the original grantee and under the circumstances, it has to be held unreasonable. 8. 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. 9. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 24.02.2025 passed by respondent no.2 bearing No.PTCL 91/2022 vide Annexure-L to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (ii) It is hereby ordered that status quo ante in respect of the revenue records and possession of the property prior to passing of the order by the Deputy Commissioner shall be restored; (iii) The prayer of the petitioner challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010157032025 NC: 2026:KHC:47021 WP No. 6785 of 2025 carried out to Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2023 (the Karnataka Act No.30 of 2023), stands dismissed as not pressed. (iv) The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. (v) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35