- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471872023 NC: 2026:KHC:47620 WP No. 20475 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 20475 OF 2023 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. DODDANARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE C.B. GUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/OF BRAMHASANDRA VILLAGE KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SHIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 125. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR - 572 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADHUGIRI SUB DIVISION Digitally signed by K M SOMASHEKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471872023 NC: 2026:KHC:47620 WP No. 20475 of 2023 MADHUGIRI - 572 132. 4. SMT. CHIKKAMMA W/O SRIRANGASHYAMAIAH MAJOR R/OF SEEBI AGRAHARA KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SHIRA TALUK TUMKUR - 572 125. 5. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O NARAYANARAJU MAJOR R/OF SIRA GATE TUMKUR - 572 106. 6. SMT. MANJAMMA W/O THIMMAIAH MAJOR R/OF ANDHRAHALLI VILLAGE BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560 091. 7. SRI. GOVINDA RAJU S/O VENAKTARAMAIAH MAJOR R/OF SEEBI AGRAHARA KALLAMBELLA HOBLI SHIRA TALUK TUMKUR - 572 125. 8. SMT. MANGALAMMA W/O ANANDAPPA MAJOR R/OF ANDHRAHALLI VILLAGE - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471872023 NC: 2026:KHC:47620 WP No. 20475 of 2023 BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560 091. 9. SRI. NATARAJU S/O VENKATARAMANAIAH AGED MAJOR R/OF NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123. 10. PANDURANGAIAH S/O RANGANNA MAJOR 11. DEVARAJU S/O RANGANNA MAJOR RESPONDENT NOS.10 AND 11 ARE R/OF LUTTAHANUMAIAH PALYA GRAMA KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. M.R.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R7, R10, R11 - SERVED; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 01.12.2025 NOTICE TO R5, R6, R8 AND R9 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING OR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN PTCL-33/2021 DATED - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471872023 NC: 2026:KHC:47620 WP No. 20475 of 2023 21.08.2023 (COMMON ORDER PASSED IN PTCL 33/2021 AND PTCL 36/2021) AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN PTCL SR NO.13/2015-26 DATED 13.12.2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: 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 1960. He belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. He sold the same in the year 1964 itself. 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. Presently, petitioner is the owner of the property. In the year 2015, for the first time an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was made by the contesting respondent, who claimed to be the legal representative of the original grantee. Respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner has allowed the said application. Respondent No.2-Deputy - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471872023 NC: 2026:KHC:47620 WP No. 20475 of 2023 Commissioner has confirmed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, there has been an unreasonable delay on the part of respondent no.4 in making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. It is also submitted even otherwise the land having been sold for the first time in the year 1964, the then purchaser and any persons claiming under him subsequently have perfected their title by way of prescription or adverse possession or otherwise before the PTCL Act came into force itself. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent and the learned AGA for respondent nos.1 to 3 justify the impugned orders and pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner had perfected his title by way of prescription prior to coming into force of the PTCL Act and also whether there has been any unreasonable delay on part of the contesting respondent in making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act which would become fatal to her case. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471872023 NC: 2026:KHC:47620 WP No. 20475 of 2023 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Manchegowda and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (1984) 3 SCC 301, in paragraph 15, it has been held as under: "15. Any person who acquires such granted land by transfer from the original grantee in breach of the condition relating to prohibition on such transfer must necessarily be presumed to be aware of the prohibition imposed on the transfer of such granted land. Anybody who acquires such granted land in contravention of the prohibition relating to transfer of such granted land cannot be considered to be a bona fide purchaser for value; and every such transferee acquires to his knowledge only a voidable title to the granted land. The title acquired by such transfer is defeasible and is liable to be defeated by an appropriate action taken in this regard. If the Legislature under such circumstances seek to intervene in the interests of these weaker sections of the community and choose to substitute a speedier and cheaper method of recovery of these granted lands which were otherwise liable to be resumed through legal process, it cannot, in our opinion, be said that any vested rights of the transferees are affected. Transferees of granted lands with full knowledge of the legal position that the transfers made in their favour in contravention of the terms of grant or any law, rule or regulation governing such grant are liable to be defeated in law, cannot and do not have in law or equity, a genuine or real grievance that their defeasible title in such granted lands - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471872023 NC: 2026:KHC:47620 WP No. 20475 of 2023 so transferred is, in fact, being defeated and they are being dispossessed of such lands from which they were in law liable to be dispossessed by process of law. The position will, however, be somewhat different where the transferees have acquired such granted lands not in violation of any term of the grant or any law regulating such grant as also where any transferee who may have acquired a defeasible title in such granted lands by the transfer thereof in contravention of the terms of the grant or any law regulating such grant has perfected his title by prescription of time or otherwise. We shall consider such cases later on. We shall consider such cases later on. But where the transferee acquires only a defeasible title liable to be defeated in accordance with law, avoidance of such defeasible title which still remains liable to be defeated in accordance with law at the date of commencement of the Act and recovery of possession of such granted land on the basis of the provisions contained in Section 4 and Section 5 of the Act cannot be said to be constitutionally invalid and such a provision cannot be termed as unconscionable, unjust and arbitrary. The first two contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are, therefore, overruled." 6. In the instant case, the property was first sold in the year 1964. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. More than 14 years had elapsed by the time the PTCL Act came into force since the sale had taken place. Under the said circumstances, though the land was sold in violation of the provision of Section - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471872023 NC: 2026:KHC:47620 WP No. 20475 of 2023 4(1) of the PTCL Act, wherein the land was sold within the non- alienation period, more than 14 years had elapsed before the PTCL Act came into force, it has to be held that the purchaser or any persons claiming under them had perfected their title with respect to the land concerned. 7. Even otherwise there has been a delay of 36 years since the PTCL Act coming into force in making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 8. Under the circumstances, the inordinate delay in challenging the sale made in the year 1964 becomes fatal to the case of respondent no.4 as per the ratio laid down by 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. 9. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471872023 NC: 2026:KHC:47620 WP No. 20475 of 2023 (ii) The impugned order dated 13.12.2021 bearing No.PTCL SR:13/2015-16 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure-F to the writ petition) is hereby set aside; (iii) The impugned order dated 21.08.2023 bearing No.PTCL-33/2021 (common order passed in PTCL-33/2021 and PTCL-36/2021) passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure-G to the writ petition) is hereby set aside; (iv) Application made under Section 5 of the PTCL Act by respondent no.4 before respondent no.3 is hereby dismissed; (v) Authorities concerned are directed to restore the name of the petitioner as the owner of the property in the revenue records insofar as it relates to lands which are not acquired by the State; (vi) Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG