Allowed¶58

Sri a N Paramashivaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2026WP/7709/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PTCL Act 1978 restoration application under Section 5 filed 58 years after first sale (grant 1952 Grow More Food Scheme; sale 1960; petitioner purchase 2006; application 2018) rejected for inordinate unexplained delay applying Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (2020) 14 SCC 232 and R. Suresh Mohan W.P.No.3597/2018; Deputy Commissioner's remand order dated 05.02.2021 in LND SCST(A)/69/2019 set aside; Assistant Commissioner's rejection upheld; Karnataka HC Bengaluru, M.I. Arun, J., WP 7709/2021 (SC/ST).

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 05.02.2021 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure-G) set aside; pending interlocutory applications disposed of. ¶58

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 05.02.2021 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure-G) set aside; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the land is a granted land attracting the PTCL Act (petitioner's case: it was merely allotted under the Grow More Food Scheme, so the PTCL Act does not apply); the Court proceeded irrespective of this question. +2 more

¶49

Court's answer

The Court did not decide whether the land is a granted land within Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act; its disposition proceeds irrespective of that question, on the facts (grant 1952, first sale 1960, application 2018).

¶49

Ratio / Principle

There is an inordinate delay of 58 years in preferring the 2018 restoration application, and no reasonable explanation is provided for the delay.

¶52

Key takeaways

The application was not filed within a reasonable time.ratio¶52
Applying the ratio of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi ((2020) 14 SCC 232) and the decision in R. Suresh Mohan (W.P.No.3597/2018), the application of respondent Nos.4 to 11 under Section 5 of the PTCL Act is liable to be rejected.ratio¶52
Respondent No.2 (Assistant Commissioner) had rightly rejected the application.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (SC/ST) under Articles 226 & 227 allowed. Land granted in 1952 under the Grow More Food Scheme; first sold 1960; petitioner purchased 2006; legal representatives of the original grantee (respondent Nos.4 to 11) sought restoration under Section 5 PTCL Act in 2018; the Assistant Commissioner rejected the application, but the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 05.02.2021 (LND SCST(A)/69/2019, Annexure-G) set aside the rejection and remanded. The High Court (M.I. Arun, J.), without deciding whether the land is a granted land under Section 3(b), found a 58-year delay with no reasonable explanation and that the application was not filed within a reasonable time; applying Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (2020) 14 SCC 232 and R. Suresh Mohan (W.P.No.3597/2018), it held the application liable to be rejected, upheld the Assistant Commissioner's rejection, and set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order as clearly erroneous.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:35432 WP No. 7709 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.7709 OF 2021 (SC/ST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI A.N. PARAMASHIVAIAH S/O. NEELAKANTE GOWDA,

¶9

AGED 76 YEARS, R/AT ATTUR VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 067.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

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

¶12

(BY SRI. BALARAJ A.C., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPT., M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPUR-561 203.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:35432 WP No. 7709 of 2021

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

DEVANAHALLI - 562 110.

¶21

SRI. NAGAPPA S/O. LATE GURUVA @ GURAPPA, AGED 67 YEARS,

¶22

SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O. LATE GURUVA @ GURAPPA, AGED: MAJOR,

¶23

RESPONDENTS NOS.4 AND 5 ARE R/O. THIRUMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, THOOBAGERE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

¶24

SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O. LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA, AGED 46 YEARS,

¶25

SRI. VENKATESH S/O. LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA, AGED 44 YEARS,

¶26

SRI. MUNIKRISHNA S/O. LATE VENKATARAYAPPA AGED 37 YEARS,

¶27

SRI. VARADARAJU S/O. LATE VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED 34 YEARS,

¶28

SMT. YASHODHAMMA D/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED 31 YEARS,

¶29

SMT. MANJULA D/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED: MAJOR,

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:35432 WP No. 7709 of 2021

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

RESPONDENT NOS.6 TO 11 ARE R/O. HALASAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

[BY SMT. ANITHA N., AGA., FOR R.1 TO R.3; SRI. BABU D.R., AND K. MUNIRAJU, ADVOCATES FOR R.4 TO R.11. (ABSENT)]

¶36

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2021 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, IN CASE NO.LND SCST(A)/69/2019, VIDE ANNEXURE-G, BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI, ETC.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35432 WP No. 7709 of 2021

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

ORAL ORDER

¶42

The land in question was originally granted in favour of original grantee in the year 1952 under the Grow More Food Scheme. For the first time, it was sold in the year 1960. The present petitioner purchased the land in the year 2006. The application for restoration and resumption of the land under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short "the PTCL Act") was made by the legal representatives of the original grantee (respondent Nos.4 to 11) in the year 2018. The application was rejected by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner. Respondent Nos.4 to 11 preferred an appeal before respondent No.3, who has passed the impugned order and set aside the order passed by respondent no.2 - Assistant Commissioner and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶43

The case of the petitioner is that the land was not a granted land, but was allotted to the original grantee under the Grow More Food Scheme and the provisions of the PTCL Act is

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35432 WP No. 7709 of 2021

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

not applicable to the same. It is further contended that even otherwise the land was first sold in the year 1960 and the application has been preferred in the year 2018, after a lapse of nearly 58 years and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 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 application filed by respondent Nos.4 to 11 ought to have been rejected and respondent No.3 - Deputy Commissioner has erroneously allowed the same.

¶47

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 11 is absent.

¶48

Learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 justifies the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶49

Irrespective of whether the land is a granted land or not as per Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act, on facts it is seen that the land was granted in favour of the original grantee in the year 1952. The same was sold for the first time in the year 1960 and

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:35432 WP No. 7709 of 2021

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

presently, the petitioner claims to be the owner of the property. That for the first time, an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was made in the year 2018. There has been an inordinate delay of 58 years in preferring the application. There is no reasonable explanation provided for the inordinate delay. The application has not been filed within a reasonable time. Under the circumstances applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 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 application filed by respondent No.4 to 11 under the provisions of Section 5 of the PTCL Act is liable to be rejected. Respondent No.2Assistant Commissioner has rightly rejected the application. Respondent No.3 - Deputy Commissioner ought not to have set aside the same and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner. The action of respondent No.3 is clearly erroneous.

¶53