SMT. KAMALAMMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 as & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
(iv) The writ petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 12.01.2026 bearing No.PTCL/18/2024 passed by respondent no.2 (vide Annexure-F to the writ petition) is hereby set aside; (ii) The impugned order dated…
Judgment
1. SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT KRS AGRAHARA KUNIGAL TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137.
2. SMT. PRIYANKA N. W/O MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT GIDAGANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137. (BY SRI. MADHUSUDHAN M.N., ADVOCATE) AND:
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT TUMAKURU-572 101.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34053 WP No. 19722 of 2026 HC-KAR MADHUGIRI SUB DIVISION MADHUGIRI TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132.
THE TAHASILDAR SIRA TALUK, SIRA TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137.
SMT. SAKAMMA W/O LATE MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT MANANGI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA N., AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R3; SRI. MANJUNATH T.M., ADVOCATE FOR C/R4) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI, THERE BY QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12/06/2026 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT / THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN PTC/4/2026 AS PER ANNEXURE - G AND ORDER DATED 12/01/2026 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT/THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN PTCL NO.18/2024 AS PER ANNEXURE -F AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34053 WP No. 19722 of 2026 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER
1. The husband of respondent no.4 was granted land in the year 1949 on the ground that he belonged to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community. In the year 2009, respondent no.4 and her daughter one Smt. Kenchamma, who admittedly happens to be a government servant, together alienated the land in favour of petitioner no.1 herein for a valuable consideration at market price. In the year 2024, respondent no.4 made an application before respondent no.2 that the said alienation was in contravention of Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands] Act, 1978, (for short 'PTCL Act'). Respondent no.2 has passed the impugned order at Annexure-F to the writ petition, wherein he accepted the contention of respondent no.4 and has ordered for resumption and restoration of the land in favour of respondent no.4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal before respondent no.1, who has dismissed the same by virtue of the impugned order at Annexure-G to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the impugned - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34053 WP No. 19722 of 2026 HC-KAR orders passed by respondent nos.2 and 1, the present writ petition is filed.
2. The case of the petitioners is that, the grant was made in the year 1949 and the sale was made by respondent no.4 and her daughter for a valuable consideration in the year 2009 and after a lapse of 15 years they have made an application before respondent no.2. On the ground of unreasonable delay in making the said application, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed by setting aside the impugned orders.
3. The aforementioned facts are not disputed by the respondents. However, it is contented that, in the light of amendment to Section 5 of the PTCL Act, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. This is a case where the daughter of respondent no.4 is educated and worldly wise. There is no exploitation of respondent no.4 and her daughter by the petitioners. On the contrary, it is a classic case of respondent no.4 trying to make illegal gains at the cost of the petitioners. Admittedly, there is a delay of 15 years in making an application under Section 5 of - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34053 WP No. 19722 of 2026 HC-KAR the PTCL Act, the same is not explained and the delay under the circumstances has to be considered unreasonable in the light of judgment passed 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 R.Suresh Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.3597/2018.
Operative part
For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 12.01.2026 bearing No.PTCL/18/2024 passed by respondent no.2 (vide Annexure-F to the writ petition) is hereby set aside; (ii) The impugned order dated 12.06.2026 bearing No.PTCL/4/2026 passed by respondent no.1 (vide Annexure-G to the writ petition) is hereby set aside; (iii) The application filed by respondent no.4 before respondent no.2 stands dismissed; - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:34053 WP No. 19722 of 2026 HC-KAR (iv) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: (iv) The writ petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Scheduled Tribes [Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands] Act, 1978.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 12 Jun 2026. The bench was M I ARUN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.