Smt.Munirathna v. The Deputy Commissioner

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:41550( WP(No.(12490(of(2025( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010289322025( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

TH DATED(THIS(THE(6 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026(

BEFORE(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(M.I.ARUN(

WRIT(PETITION(NO.(12490(OF(2025((SC-ST)(

BETWEEN:(( (

1., SMT.,MUNIRATHNA, D/O,LATE,KEMPAIAH, W/O,H.M.,VENKATESH, AGE,ABOUT,50,YEARS, ,

2., SRI.,H.M.,VENKATESH, S/O,LATE,MARIYAPPA, AGED,ABOUT,59,YEARS,, , BOTH,ARE,R/AT,NO.,RC-22, PRUKSA,SILVANA,VILLAS,

BUDIGERE,CROSS, NIMBEKAIPURA,VILLAGE,ROAD, BENGALURU,EAST,Digitally

signedtiby BENGALURU-560,049, GEETHA0P0G …PETITIONERS, Location: (BY,SRI.,H.,MOHAN,KUMAR,,ADVOCATE), HIGH COURT0OF AND:(KARNATAKA (

1., THE,DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALAPURA,DISTRICT, CHIKKABALAPURA-562,101, ,

2., THE,ASSISTANT,COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALAPURA,SUB,DIVISION, CHIKKABALAPURA-562,101, , ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:41550( WP(No.(12490(of(2025( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010289322025( ( (

3., SRI.,SURESH, S/O,LATE,VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED,50,YEARS, ,

4., SRI.,DYAVAPPA, S/O,LATE,VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED,46,YEARS, ,

5., SMT.,RATHNAMMA, W/O,BALARAJU, AGED,ABOUT,40,YEARS, , RESPONDENT,NOS.3,TO,5,ARE, R/AT,BYRAGANAHALLI,VILLAGE, BASHETTAHALLI,HOBLI, SHIDALGATTA,TALUK, CHIKKABALAPURA,DISTRICT-563,159, , …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,BHAIRAV,KUTTAIAH,,AGA,FOR,R1,AND,R2;, ,,,,,,SMT.,H.V.,VASANTHALAKSHMI,,ADVOCATE,FOR,, ,,,,,,R3,AND,R4-[ABSENT];, ,,,,,,SRI.,PAVAN,KUMAR,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R5-[ABSENT]), , , THIS, PETITION, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLE, 226, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,,PRAYING,TO,ISSUE,AN,ORDER,OR, DIRECTION, IN, THE, NATURE, OF, CERTIORARI, BY, QUASHING, THE,ORDER,DATED,30.06.2023,IN,NO.,PTCL,(SID),22/2021-22, PASSED,BY,RESPONDENT,NO.2,VIDE,ANNEXURE-G,,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

ORAL ORDER

¶1The land which is the subject matter of the writ petition was granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1982. He belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. The grant was subject to a condition that the land should not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of grant. For the first time, a portion of the property was sold in the year 1999 and the remaining portion was sold in the year 2006. Respondent nos.3 to 5 are the legal representatives 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 2021. Respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner allowed the application on the ground that Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act was violated and ordered for resumption and restoration of the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. The appeal filed by petitioner no.1 against the said order of Assistant Commissioner has been dismissed by respondent

no.1-Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶2The case of the petitioners is that the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has been filed after an unreasonable delay of 15 years from the date of second sale and the said delay has not been satisfactorily explained. On the said ground, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed.

¶3Learned counsel for respondent nos.3 to 5 are absent.

¶4Learned Additional Government Advocate justifies the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶5The only question that arises for consideration is whether there is any inordinate and unreasonable delay in filing the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act.

¶6Hon'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 an unreasonable delay in challenging the sale

becomes fatal to an application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act.

¶7Admittedly, the sales were effected in the years 1999 and 2006. The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed only in the year 2021, after a lapse of 15 years from the date of second sale. The said delay has not been satisfactorily explained by respondent nos.3 to 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the same has to be held as unreasonable. Respondent nos.1 and 2 have committed an error by passing the impugned orders. Accordingly, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

¶8Hence, the following: ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

(ii) The impugned order dated 30.06.2023 bearing no¦n¹J¯ï.(²)22/2021-22 passed by respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-G to the writ petition is hereby set aside;

(iii) The impugned order dated 03.03.2025 bearing no.DgïJ/J¸ï.¹.J¸ïn/39/2023-24 passed by respondent no.1-Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-H to the writ petition is hereby set aside;

(iv) The application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act by respondent nos.3 and 4 before respondent no.2 is hereby dismissed;

(v) Authorities are directed to restore status quo ante in respect of revenue records pertaining to the property, as it stood prior to initiation of the proceedings under Section 5 of the PTCL Act.

SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49