Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Sri Narayanappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Sri Narayanappa Vs the State of KarnatakaSri Narayanappa v. the State of Karnataka

Allowed¶46

Sri Narayanappa v. the State of Karnataka

PTCL Act, S.5 – Restoration of land granted to SC/ST grantee – Land granted in 1967, sold in 1968

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2026WP/12448/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), Writ Petition No. 12448 of 2022 (SCST), decided 14.07.2026 by Justice M.I. Arun. Petitioner Narayanappa (purchaser's side) challenged PTCL restoration orders: Assistant Commissioner's order dated 16.07.2015 (LND.SC.ST.KLR.06/2005-06) restoring granted land to respondent no.4 (legal heir of 1967 SC/ST grantee) and Deputy Commissioner's appellate order dated 18.09.2019 (R.A.SC-ST.7/2015-16). Section 5 PTCL Act application filed in 2005, 37 years after the 1968 sale; delay unexplained. Applying Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 14 SCC 232, and R.Suresh Mohan v. State of Karnataka, W.P.No.3597/2018, the Court held such delayed applications cannot be sustained; both orders set aside, Section 5 application dismissed, writ petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16.07.2015 passed by respondent no.3 in No.LND.SC.ST KLR.06/2005-06 (Annexure-B) and impugned order dated 18.09.2019 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure-A) set aside; the application filed by respondent no.4 under Section 5 of the PTCL Act stands dismissed; writ petition allowed.

Why is it important?

There was an admitted, inordinate and unexplained delay of 37 years in challenging the 1968 sale of the granted land. ¶38

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 16.07.2015 passed by respondent no.3 in No.LND.SC.ST KLR.06/2005-06 (Annexure-B) and impugned order dated 18.09.2019 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure-A) set aside; the application filed by respondent no.4 under Section 5 of the PTCL Act stands dismissed; writ petition allowed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, filed 37 years after the 1968 sale with an unexplained and inordinate delay, could be sustained, and whether the impugned orders directing resumption and restoration of the land were sustainable.

Court's answer

There was an admitted, inordinate and unexplained delay of 37 years in challenging the 1968 sale of the granted land.

Ratio / Principle

Following the ratio in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another, (2020) 14 SCC 232, and R.Suresh Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P.No.3597/2018, where there is an inordinate and unreasonable delay in challenging the sale, the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act cannot be sustained.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PTCL Act, S.5 - Restoration of land granted to SC/ST grantee - Land granted in 1967, sold in 1968 - Section 5 application filed only in 2005, i.e., after an admitted, inordinate and unexplained delay of 37 years - Held, applying Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another, (2020) 14 SCC 232, and R.Suresh Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P.No.3597/2018, that where there is inordinate and unreasonable delay in challenging the sale, the application under S.5 PTCL Act cannot be sustained - Order dated 16.07.2015 of the Assistant Commissioner ordering resumption and restoration, and order dated 18.09.2019 of the Deputy Commissioner dismissing the appeal, set aside - Section 5 application dismissed - Writ petition allowed.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35802 WP No. 12448 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 12448 OF 2022 (SCST)

BETWEEN:

SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE H.VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS THONDALA VILLAGE HOLUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. S.VIJAYA KUMAR AND

SRI. NAGARAJA N., ADVOCATES)

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS REVENUE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563 101.

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35802 WP No. 12448 of 2022

HC-KAR

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION KOLAR-563 101.

SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT THONDALA VILLAGE KOLAR TALUK/DISTRICT-563 101.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. ANITHA N., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. V.VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH/SET SIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2019 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN R.A.SC-ST.7/2015-16 AND ORDER DATED 16.07.2015 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN CASE NO.LND.SC.ST.KLR. 06/2005-06 (ANNEXURES-A AND B) HOLDING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35802 WP No. 12448 of 2022

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ORAL ORDER

1. Respondent no.4 is the legal heir of the original grantee. Petitioner is the legal representative of the purchaser. The land was granted in favour of original grantee in the year 1967. He belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. The land was sold in the year 1968. A challenge to the same was made by filing 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') in the year 2005. Respondent no.3 has allowed the said application and ordered for resumption and restoration of the land in favour of respondent no.4. Against the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent no.2. The same has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, there has been an unexplained inordinate delay of 37 years in preferring the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act since the sale was executed and based on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35802 WP No. 12448 of 2022

HC-KAR

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 , the application ought to have been rejected. However, the impugned orders are passed in favour of respondent no.4, which are erroneous.

3. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for respondent no.4 justify the impugned orders and pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Admittedly, there has been an inordinate delay of 37 years in challenging the sale, which is unexplained. As per the ratio laid down by 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 R.Suresh Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.3597/2018 , when there is an inordinate and unreasonable delay in challenging the sale, the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act cannot be sustained.

5. Hence, the following:

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35802 WP No. 12448 of 2022

HC-KAR

ORDER

(i) The impugned order dated 16.07.2015 passed by respondent no.3 in No.LND.SC.ST KLR.06/2005-06 (vide Annexure-B to the writ petition) is hereby set aside;

(ii) The impugned order dated 18.09.2019 passed by respondent no.2 in No.Dgï.J.J¸ï.¹.J¸ï.n.07/2015-16 (vide Annexure-A to the writ petition) is hereby set aside;

(iii) The application filed by respondent no.4 before respondent no.3 under Section 5 of the PTCL Act stands dismissed;

(iv) Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed .

SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

PGG

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, filed 37 years after the 1968 sale with an unexplained and inordinate delay, could be sustained, and whether the impugned orders directing resumption and restoration of the land were sustainable.¶38
The court held
There was an admitted, inordinate and unexplained delay of 37 years in challenging the 1968 sale of the granted land.ratio¶38

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and AnotherApplied¶38
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 · Who else cites this
R.Suresh Mohan v. State of Karnataka and OthersApplied¶38
R.Suresh Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.3597/2018

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 3 enactments

AI extract

Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978Section 5¶32
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('the PTCL Act')Section 5¶45
Constitution of India

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 18.09.2019 passed by respondent no.2 (Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District) in R.A.SC-ST.7/2015-16 (Annexure-A) dismissing the petitioner's appeal, and order dated 16.07.2015 passed by respondent no.3 (Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub-Division) in Case No.LND.SC.ST.KLR.06/2005-06 (Annexure-B) allowing resumption and restoration of the land¶25
Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District (respondent no.2) and Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub-Division (respondent no.3) · 18.09.2019 and 16.07.2015
Prior proceeding
Land granted in 1967 in favour of the original grantee (predecessor of respondent no.4), who belonged to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community¶32
Prior proceeding
The granted land was sold in 1968 (petitioner is the legal representative of the purchaser)¶32
Prior proceeding
In 2005 an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was filed challenging the sale¶32
Prior proceeding
By order dated 16.07.2015, respondent no.3 (Assistant Commissioner) allowed the Section 5 application and ordered resumption and restoration of the land in favour of respondent no.4¶32
Prior proceeding
Petitioner appealed before respondent no.2 (Deputy Commissioner); the appeal was dismissed by order dated 18.09.2019¶32

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Sri. Narayanappa S/o Late H.Venkateshappa¶9
Sri. S.Vijaya Kumar, Sri. Nagaraja N.
respondent
The State of Karnataka by its Revenue Department, represented by its Principal Secretary, M.S.Building, Bengaluru-560 001¶15
Smt. Anitha N.
respondent
The Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, Kolar-563 101¶16
Smt. Anitha N.
respondent
The Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub-Division, Kolar-563 101¶20
Smt. Anitha N.
respondent
Sri. Narayanappa S/o Late Narayanappa¶21
Sri. V.Vinod Reddy

Coram

AI extract

M.I. ARUNauthor¶30

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 14 Jul 2026 · July
Registered: 23 Jun 2022
Case no.: WP/12448/2022
CNR: KAHC010275132022
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: M.i.arun
Disposal: ALLOWED
Case type: Writ Petition (SCST)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from M.i.arun

Sri.M.D.Manchaiah Vs the State of Karnataka
13 Jul 2026
Sri a N Paramashivaiah Vs the State of Karnataka
13 Jul 2026
Sri Nanda Gopal Vs the State of Karnataka
13 Jul 2026
Smt. Manju Kathuri Vs the Deputy Commissioner
14 Jul 2026
Sri Chennakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka
14 Jul 2026
P M Prasanna Vs the State of Karnataka
14 Jul 2026

Cite this judgement

Sri Narayanappa v. the State of Karnataka, WP/12448/2022 (KA), decided on 14 July 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited2

Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and AnotherApplied¶38
R.Suresh Mohan v. State of Karnataka and OthersApplied¶38

Open Authorities

Statutes3

Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978Section 5
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('the PTCL Act')Section 5
Constitution of IndiaArticles 226 & 227

View all statutes

Procedural history6

Order dated 18.09.2019 passed by respondent no.2 (Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District) in R.A.SC-ST.7/2015-16 (Annexure-A) dismissing the petitioner's appeal, and order dated 16.07.2015 passed by respondent no.3 (Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub-Division) in Case No.LND.SC.ST.KLR.06/2005-06 (Annexure-B) allowing resumption and restoration of the landDeputy Commissioner, Kolar District (respondent no.2) and Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub-Division (respondent no.3) · 18.09.2019 and 16.07.2015
Land granted in 1967 in favour of the original grantee (predecessor of respondent no.4), who belonged to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community
The granted land was sold in 1968 (petitioner is the legal representative of the purchaser)

View full history

Bench / Coram

M.I. ARUN

Parties & counsel

Articles 226 & 227¶24