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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed. The appellate order dated 11.09.2025 bearing Case No.PTCL/28/2023 passed by respondent No.1 (Annexure-A) is set aside; the order dated 07.03.2023 bearing No.KSC & ST(A) NO:28/2020-21 passed by respondent No.2 dismissing respondent No.3's Section 5 application (Annexure-B) is upheld; all pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether, notwithstanding the amendment to Section 5 of the PTCL Act carried out pursuant to the Apex Court decision in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi, the Deputy Commissioner's appellate order allowing respondent No.3's Section 5 application is liable to be set aside. +1 more

Court's answer

Irrespective of the amendment carried out to Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2023, an inordinate delay in challenging the sale of granted land is fatal to the case of the person making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act.

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.3 did not satisfactorily explain the delay in challenging the 2007 sale of the granted land, and in the facts and circumstances of the case the delay must be considered unreasonable.

Key takeaways

In consequence, the appellate order dated 11.09.2025 bearing Case No.PTCL/28/2023 passed by respondent No.1 (Annexure-A) is set aside, and the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 07.03.2023 bearing No.KSC & ST(A) NO:28/2020-21 dismissing respondent No.3's application (Annexure-B) is upheld.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PTCL Act, 1978 — Section 5 application — inordinate delay. Land granted in 1979 to the original grantee was sold in 2007 to the petitioner without the necessary permission from the State. Respondent No.3, the grantee's legal heir, applied under Section 5 of the Karnataka SC and ST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 only in 2021. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the application for inordinate delay; on appeal, the Deputy Commissioner allowed it (order dated 11.09.2025, PTCL 28/2023) in light of the 2023 amendment to Section 5 flowing from Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another, (2020) 14 SCC 232. Holding of this Court: irrespective of the 2023 amendment to Section 5, an inordinate delay in challenging the sale is fatal to a Section 5 application; the delay here was not satisfactorily explained and was unreasonable. Writ petition allowed: Deputy Commissioner's appellate order set aside; Assistant Commissioner's dismissal order dated 07.03.2023 (KSC & ST(A) 28/2020-21) upheld. Reliance placed on this Court's earlier decision in R.Suresh Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P.No.3597/2018, which itself rested on the Division Bench decision in Smt.Gouramma @ Gangamma vs. The Deputy Commissioner and Others, W.A.No.100101/2024.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35817 WP No. 34167 of 2025

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. 34167 OF 2025 (SC/ST)

BETWEEN:

SMT. MANJU KATHURI W/O. SRI. K. KATHURI, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.90/75, CHIKKASANDRA VILLAGE, SOMPURA GATE, B.HOSAHALLI ROAD, SOMPURA VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 560 099, BANGALORE DISTRICT.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M, ADVOCATE)

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

AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE - 560 009.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 027.

MR. C.M. SHIVASHANKARA.C. SON OF MR. MUNITHAYAPPA @ CHIKKA MUNITHAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35817 WP No. 34167 of 2025

HC-KAR

R/AT. DODDATHIMMASANDRA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 125.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. ANITHA N, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. PRAKASH T HEBBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER APPEAL PTCL 28/2023, DATED: 11.09.2025 ANNEXURE 'A' PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT I.E., THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE DISTRICT IN KSC & ST (A) 28/2020-21, DATED: 07.03.2023 I.E., ANNEXURE 'B' AND THUS DISMISS THE PETITION FILED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT UNDER SEC. 5(1) (A) AND (B) OF THE KARNATAKA SC AND ST (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) ACT, 1978 AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35817 WP No. 34167 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Respondent No.3 is the legal heir of the original grantee. The petitioner is the purchaser of the land. The land was granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1979. It was sold in the year 2007 without obtaining the necessary permission from the State. It was challenged for the first time, by making 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 2021. The application made by respondent No.3 was dismissed by respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner on the ground of inordinate delay in preferring the same. An appeal filed by respondent No.3 before respondent No.1 has been allowed in the light of amendment carried out under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35817 WP No. 34167 of 2025

HC-KAR

The case of the petitioner is that, irrespective of the amendment that has been carried out to Section 5 of the PTCL Act by virtue of the decision of 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 , the impugned order passed by

respondent No.1 is liable to be set aside.

The learned Additional Government Advocate as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 justify the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

Admittedly, the property has been sold in the year 2007 and a challenge to the same has been made in the year 2021 after an inordinate delay. The said delay has not been explained satisfactorily by respondent No.3 and under the facts and circumstances of the case, the

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35817 WP No. 34167 of 2025

HC-KAR

delay has to be considered unreasonable. This Court, in W.P.No.3597/2018, relying upon the judgment passed by

the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Gouramma @ Gangamma vs. The Deputy Commissioner and Others in W.A.No.100101/2024, has held that, irrespective of the amendment carried out to Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2023, if there is an inordinate delay in challenging the sale made, then in that event, it becomes fatal to the case of the person making an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. Hence, the following:

ORDER

i. The Writ Petition is hereby allowed.

ii. The impugned order dated 11.09.2025 bearing Case No.PTCL/28/2023 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure - A to the writ petition, is hereby set aside.

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35817 WP No. 34167 of 2025

HC-KAR

iii. The impugned order 07.03.2023 bearing No.KSC & ST(A) NO:28/2020-21 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure - B to the writ petition is upheld.

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

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

CH

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22