- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010290872025 NC: 2026:KHC:47132 WP No. 12661 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 12661 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: P.E. NAGENDRAPPA S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA, AGE 67 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) RETD. TEACHER, R/O MATHIGHATTA VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 562, …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA - 577 501, 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION, CHITRADURGA - 577 501, 3. MANJAPPA S/O LATE KALLAPPA, AGE MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST, R/O MATHIGHATTA VILLAGE, Digitally signed by K M SOMASHEKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010290872025 NC: 2026:KHC:47132 WP No. 12661 of 2025 TALYA HOBLI, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 562 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2 SRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO. SCPTL/HLK.20/2014-15 DATED 06/01/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN PTCL.1/23 DATED 16/04/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO THE WP. 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 granted in the year 1942 in favour of the original grantee. He belonged to the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe Community. The original grantee has sold - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010290872025 NC: 2026:KHC:47132 WP No. 12661 of 2025 the land in the year 1967 in favour of the father of the petitioner herein. The petitioner is the present owner of the property. For the first time, 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'), which came into force with effect from 01.01.1979, challenging the sale was filed in the year 2014, after a lapse of 47 years from the date of the sale and 35 years from the date of the PTCL Act coming into force. In spite of the inordinate delay, respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner has allowed the application and has ordered for resumption and restoration of the land in favour of the legal heir of the original grantee (respondent No.3 herein). The appeal preferred by the petitioner is dismissed by respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition is filed. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010290872025 NC: 2026:KHC:47132 WP No. 12661 of 2025 2. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 1 are passed without taking into consideration the inordinate delay on the part of respondent No.3 in making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner. On the said ground, it is prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. 3. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 justify the impugned orders and pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The only question that arises for consideration is, whether there has been any inordinate and unreasonable delay on the part of respondent No.3 in preferring the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010290872025 NC: 2026:KHC:47132 WP No. 12661 of 2025 5. Admittedly, the sale was in the year 1967 and the PTCL Act came into force in the year 1979. The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been made only in the year 2014. The inordinate delay of 47 years in filing the application from the date of the sale and 35 years from the date of the PTCL Act coming into force, has not been explained satisfactorily by respondent No.3 and under the given facts and circumstances of the case, it has to be held as unreasonable. 6. 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 the original grantee / his legal heirs. Hence, the following: - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010290872025 NC: 2026:KHC:47132 WP No. 12661 of 2025 ORDER i. The Writ Petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 06.01.2023 bearing Case No.S.C.P.T.L.H.L.K:20/2014-15 passed by respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure - A to the writ petition is hereby set aside. iii. The impugned order dated 16.04.2025 bearing No.PTCL-1/2023 passed by respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure - D 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 - the Assistant Commissioner stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35