- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010230202025 NC: 2026:KHC:47024 WP No. 10222 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.10222 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE J. LINGEGOWDA AGED 79 YEARS, R/O. CHIKKA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, KALAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572125. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.M. SOMASHEKARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/P BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION, MADHUGIRI, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572132. 3. TAHASILDAR, SIRA TALUK, SIRA, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572137. Digitally signed by K M SOMASHEKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010230202025 NC: 2026:KHC:47024 WP No. 10222 of 2025 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKURU, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572101. 5. NARASIMHARAJU C.R., AGED: MAJOR S/O RANGANATHAPPA, R/O. CHIKKA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, KALAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572125. …RESPONDENTS [BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA., FOR R.1 TO R.4; SRI. DASAPPA B., ADVOCATE FOR R.5 (VC)] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.11.2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 IN PTCL 8/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, 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: KAHC010230202025 NC: 2026:KHC:47024 WP No. 10222 of 2025 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 1971. He belonged to the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe community. Without obtaining the necessary permission as contemplated 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 land was sold in favour of third parties in the year 1989. Presently, the petitioner is the owner of the property. Thereafter, in the year 1994 itself, an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act came to be filed by father of respondent No.5. However, the said application came to be dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner. The application has been dismissed on the ground that grant records were not available and also on the ground that a decision cannot be arrived at as to whether the land is a granted land or not. Father of respondent no.5 has accepted the same and did not prefer any appeal. After his demise, belatedly in the year 2024, his son i.e., the present respondent No.5 preferred an appeal before the Deputy - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010230202025 NC: 2026:KHC:47024 WP No. 10222 of 2025 Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh disposal after verifying the necessary records. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that there has been an inordinate delay in entertaining the appeal by the Deputy Commissioner. The same is erroneous. It is further submitted that no records were made available by respondent No.5 before the Deputy Commissioner also by way of evidence as to whether the land is a granted land or not. On the said ground, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner be set aside. 3. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 justify the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The question that arises for consideration is whether respondent No.4 - the Deputy Commissioner was correct in entertaining the appeal filed by respondent No. 5 belatedly. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010230202025 NC: 2026:KHC:47024 WP No. 10222 of 2025 5. Admittedly, after due verification, respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the grant records pertaining to the land concerned are not available and it is not possible to decide as to whether the land is a granted land or not. The onus of establishing that the land is a granted land is on the person making a claim in respect of the same and in the instant case it is on respondent No.5. Admittedly, in the instant case, the applicant who filed the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has not produced any records to show that the land is a granted land. It is the categorical submission of the petitioner that the land is not a granted land. 6. Subsequent to the order passed in the year 1997, the original applicant did not prefer any appeal and accepted the said order. Thereafter, respondent No.5 preferred an appeal before respondent No.4 - Deputy Commissioner. Without giving any ruling on the inordinate delay of 27 years in preferring the appeal, respondent No.4 has entertained the appeal, which in my opinion, is erroneous. The contention of respondent No.5 that he was a minor when the order was passed by the - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010230202025 NC: 2026:KHC:47024 WP No. 10222 of 2025 Assistant Commissioner and once he attained majority, he has preferred the appeal, is not acceptable. 7. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 04.11.2024 passed by respondent no.4 bearing No.PTCL 8/2024 vide Annexure-E to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (ii) The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36