- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010492792025 NC: 2026:KHC:47019 WP No. 22861 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.22861 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SAVITHA W/O S.K. PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 2. MASTER MOHAN S.P. S/O S.K. PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, 3. KUMARI, TEJSHWINI S.P. D/O LATE S.K. PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, SINCE THE PEITIONER NOS.2 AND 3 ARE THE MINORS, REP BY THEIR, NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E., MOTHER SMT. SAVITHA, W/O S.K. LATE PRABHAKAR, R/AT SOMASHETTYHALLI, KANKATTE HOBLI, ARSIKERE TALUK-573201 HASSAN DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAGADEESH H.T., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by K M SOMASHEKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010492792025 NC: 2026:KHC:47019 WP No. 22861 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573103. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER REVENUE SUB-DIVISION, HASSAN-573103. 4. SRI CHIKKAVENKATAPPA S/O LATE YELLAIAH, MAJOR, R/AT NO.3, 3RD MAIN ROAD, ANJANEYAGUDI ROAD, BYRASANDRA, JAYANAGAR 1ST BLOCK, BANGALORE-01. …RESPONDENTS [BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA., FOR R.1 TO R.3; SRI. THARANATH SHETTY K., ADVOCATE FOR R.4 (ABSENT)] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2024 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT-RESPONDENT NO.2 IN PTCL NO.16/2021-22, VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2015 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HASSAN SUB-DIVISION-RESPONDENT NO.3 IN LND/SC-ST 09/2009-2010, VIDE ANNEXURE-D, ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010492792025 NC: 2026:KHC:47019 WP No. 22861 of 2025 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 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 the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. For the first time, the land was sold in the year 1967 in violation of the non-alienation period of 15 years. Presently, petitioners are the owners of the property concerned. Respondent no.4 is the legal representative of the original grantee. 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 'PTCL Act') challenging the sale was filed in the year 2009 by respondent no.4. Respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner allowed the application and ordered for resumption of the land in favour of the legal representative of the original grantee. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the said order of - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010492792025 NC: 2026:KHC:47019 WP No. 22861 of 2025 Assistant Commissioner has been dismissed by respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioners is that, an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been allowed inspite of an unreasonable delay of 42 years since the date of the sale and 30 years from the date of the Act coming into force and the said delay is unexplained. On the said ground, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 3. Learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 justifies the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 is absent. 5. The only question that arises for consideration is whether there is any inordinate unreasonable delay in making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. 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 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010492792025 NC: 2026:KHC:47019 WP No. 22861 of 2025 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. Admittedly, in the instant case there is a delay of around 30 years in challenging the sale from the date of PTCL Act coming into force. The said delay is not explained and under the given facts and circumstances of the case, it has to be held as unreasonable. 8. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 10.06.2015 passed by respondent no.3 bearing No.LND/SC/ST ASK.9/09-10 vide Annexure-D to the writ petition is hereby set aside; (ii) The impugned order dated 27.02.2024 passed by respondent no.2 bearing No.PTCL No.16/2021-22 vide Annexure-E to the writ petition is hereby set aside; - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010492792025 NC: 2026:KHC:47019 WP No. 22861 of 2025 (iii) The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act filed by respondent no.4 before respondent no.3 is hereby dismissed; (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.: 38