Allowed¶66

Smt Chinnamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2026WP/14825/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PTCL Act Section 5; Section 4(2) PTCL Act; unreasonable delay of 29 years; resumption and restoration of granted land; Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe land grant; sale without State permission; ex parte order 2016; eviction 2021; Deputy Commissioner appeal dismissed on delay; Chitradurga; Challakere Taluk; Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (2020) 14 SCC 232; R. Suresh Mohan W.P.No.3597/2018; Articles 226 and 227 writ petition; SCST category; legal heirs of grantee; quashing of PTCL orders.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 07.07.2022 of respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner (Annexure-C) and impugned order dated 16.02.2016 of respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner (Annexure-A) set aside; application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act against the petitioners dismissed; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Smt Chinnamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether the challenge under Section 5 of the PTCL Act made in 2013 to a sale effected in 1984, after an unreasonable delay of around 29 years, is violative of the ratio in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and R. Suresh Mohan and renders the proceedings fatal. +1 more

¶54

Court's answer

The delay of 29 years in challenging the 1984 sale under Section 5 of the PTCL Act is unreasonable and becomes fatal to the proceedings initiated against the petitioners, as per the law laid down in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and R. Suresh Mohan (W.P.No.3597/2018).

¶64

Ratio / Principle

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 07.07.2022 (Deputy Commissioner, Annexure-C) and 16.02.2016 (Assistant Commissioner, Annexure-A) are set aside, and the application against the petitioners under Section 5 of the PTCL Act stands dismissed.

¶74

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (M.I. Arun, J.) allowed a writ petition (SCST) under Articles 226/227 seeking quashing of orders under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('PTCL Act'). Land granted in 1960 to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe grantee (certificate issued 1973) was sold in 1984 to late Basavaraju without the permission required by Section 4(2) PTCL Act. A Section 5 proceeding initiated only in 2013 - about 29 years after the sale - ended in a 2016 ex parte order resuming and restoring the land to the grantee's legal heirs; the petitioners (Basavaraju's legal representatives), who learnt of the order only in 2021 when sought to be evicted, had their appeal dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner on 07.07.2022 solely on the ground of delay, without examining merits. Holding the 29-year delay unreasonable and therefore fatal to the proceedings, as per 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 set aside both the Deputy Commissioner's order (Annexure-C) and the Assistant Commissioner's 2016 order (Annexure-A) and dismissed the Section 5 application against the petitioners.

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:36375 WP No. 14825 of 2022

¶4

CNR: KAHC010333222022

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 14825 OF 2022 (SCST)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. CHINNAMMA, W/O LATE BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶11

SMT. MEENAKSHI, D/O LATE BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶12

SRI. VENKATESH, S/O LATE BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶13

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

¶14

SRI. PAPANNA, S/O LATE BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O NEAR CHANNAKESHAVA SWAMY TEMPLE KELAGOTE, CHITHRADURGA - 577 501.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B.M., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶19

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:36375 WP No. 14825 of 2022

¶22

CNR: KAHC010333222022

¶23

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA SUB - DIVISION, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶24

SMT BHOMAKKA, W/O LATE PAPPAIAH,

¶25

SRI. BORAIAH, S/O LATE PAPPAIAH,

¶26

SMT. BORAMMA, D/O LATE PAPPAIAH, W/O LOKANNA,

¶27

SMT. PAPPAMMA, W/O LATE BOMMALINGAIAH, D/O LATE PAPPAIAH, R/O BARAMSAGARA, CHALLAKERE TALUK - 577 522.

¶28

SRICHANNAKESHAVA, S/O LATE PAPPAIAH,

¶29

SMT. LAKASHAMMA, W/O SHIVAMURTHY, D/O LATE PAPPAIAH,

¶30

PAPPANNA, S/O LATE PAPPAIAH, ALL ARE MAJORS, RESPONDENTS (R-3 TO R-5) AND (R7 TO R-9) ARE RESIDENTS OF MYAKLARAHATTI @ PALENHATTI VILLAGE,

¶31

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:36375 WP No. 14825 of 2022

¶34

CNR: KAHC010333222022

¶35

CHIKAMMANLLI POST, CHALLAKERE TALUK - 577 522, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SMT.CHANDINI S., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.VINAY CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R9 (ABSENT))

¶38

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER NO.SCPTL/CLK/01/2013-14 DATED 16.2.2016 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 IN CASE NO.PTCL (A)5/2021 DATED 7.7.2022 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE - C AND ETC.,

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

ORAL ORDER

¶42

The land which is the subject matter of the writ petition was granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1960 and the grant certificate was issued in the year 1973. The original grantee was a person who belonged to a Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe community and he sold the land in the year 1984 to late

¶43

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:36375 WP No. 14825 of 2022

¶46

CNR: KAHC010333222022

¶47

Basavaraju without obtaining the necessary permission from the State 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 petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased Basavaraju.

¶48

The proceeding under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was initiated in the year 2013 before respondent No.2Assistant Commissioner. The petitioners were placed exparte . An order was passed for resuming and restoring the land in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee in the year 2016.

¶49

It is the case of the petitioners that they came to know about the order passed by the second respondentAssistant Commissioner only in the year 2021 when they were sought to be evicted from the land concerned. Immediately thereafter, they have preferred an appeal before the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner.

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:36375 WP No. 14825 of 2022

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

CNR: KAHC010333222022

¶53

However, on the ground of delay without going into the merits of the case, the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶54

The case of the petitioners is that the land was sold in the year 1984 and a challenge to the same under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was first made in the year 2013 after an unreasonable delay of around 29 years. This, according to the petitioners, is in violation of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. 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 .

¶55

Respondent Nos.3 to 9, who are legal representatives of the grantee, are absent.

¶56

Learned HCGP, though justifies the order passed

¶57

by the first and second respondents, is unable to dispute

¶58

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:36375 WP No. 14825 of 2022

¶61

CNR: KAHC010333222022

¶62

the fact that the sale has been challenged after a lapse of

¶63

29 years under Section 5 of the PTCL Act.

¶64

The delay of 29 years under the given facts and circumstances of the case has to be considered unreasonable and it becomes fatal to the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under Section 5 of the PTCL Act as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi, as well as the decision of this Court in R. Suresh Mohan in W.P.No.3597/2018 supra. Hence, the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i. The Writ Petition is hereby allowed.

¶67

ii. The impugned order dated 07.07.2022 bearing no. ¦.n.¹.J¯ï(J):5/2021 passed by

¶68

respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure - C to the writ petition, is hereby set aside.

¶69

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

NC: 2026:KHC:36375 WP No. 14825 of 2022

¶72

CNR: KAHC010333222022

¶73

iii. The impugned order dated 16.02.2016 bearing no. ¦.n.¹.J¯ï/.¹.J¯ï.PÉ/01/13-14 passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure - A to the writ petition, is hereby set aside.

¶74

iv. The application filed against the petitioners under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, in respect of the land which is the subject matter of the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶75

v. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶76

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶77

HDK

¶78

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Smt Chinnamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Chinnamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Narayanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Khadeer Ahmed Khan Vs the Central Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

N Jayaram Vs R G Sreenivas

Chandra Shekhar Acharya Vs the Managing Director and CEO South Canara District

Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Shivamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka