- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16112 WP No. 104208 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.104208 OF 2024 (SCST) BETWEEN: SRI. UMAKANTH N.N. S/O LATE NAGENDRAPPA, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. NEAR PADAGATTE, ANAJI GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. DAVANAGERE-577 001. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HOSPET, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583 201. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HARAPANAHALLI SUB DIVISION, HARAPANAHALLI-583 131, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, HARAPANAHALLI, TQ. HARAPANAHALLI-583 131, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR. 4. SRI. P.T. CHOWDAPPA S/O LATE POOJARI THIMMAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’S., SMT. CHANDRAMMA W/O LATE P.T. CHOWDAPPA, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, ANAJI GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE, ANAGODU HOBLI, CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.11.29 11:19:42 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16112 WP No. 104208 of 2024 TQ. AND DIST. DAVANAGERE-577 001. 5. HEMAVATHI D/O LATE P.T. CHOWDAPPA, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, ANAJI GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE, ANAGODU HOBLI, TQ. AND DIST. DAVANAGERE-577 001. 6. SRI. DHANARAJ C. S/O LATE P.T. CHOWDAPPA, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, ANAJI GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE, ANAGODU HOBLI, TQ. AND DIST. DAVANAGERE-577 001. 7. SRI. KUMARA C.P. S/O LATE P.T. CHOWDAPPA, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, ANAJI GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE, ANAGODU HOBLI, TQ. AND DIST. DAVANAGERE-577 001. 8. SRI. KUBERA G.C. S/O LATE P.T. CHOWDAPPA, AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, ANAJI GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE, ANAGODU HOBLI, TQ. AND DIST. DAVANAGERE-577 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R4 TO R8 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 03.07.2024 IN NO.APPEAL/PTCL/01/2023-24 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K AND ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2024 IN NO.PTCL (H.HALLI)/CR/05-2022 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16112 WP No. 104208 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 3. Respondents No.4 to 8 - the contesting private parties though served, are not represented. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 03.07.2024 passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, who confirmed order dated 06.02.2024 passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner. 3. In terms of order dated 06.02.2024, respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner on an application filed by respondents No.4 to 8 resumed the land and directed re-grant in favour of respondents No.4 to 8, who are the children of the seller, who sold the land under two registered sale deeds dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16112 WP No. 104208 of 2024 17.02.2004 and 04.05.2006. The property sold is Sy.No.488/1 in Chatinahalli village, Arasikere Hobli, Harappanahalli Taluk. 4. Respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner had dismissed appeal confirming order passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner. 5. Both authorities have held that the sale transaction dated 17.02.2004 in respect of 2 Acre and sale transaction dated 04.05.2006 in respect of 2 Acre in respect of the aforementioned survey number in favour of the petitioner are hit by the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ‘Act of 1978’). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the claim is hit by delay and latches and squarely covered in terms of the judgment of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16112 WP No. 104208 of 2024 Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and another1. 7. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State would defend impugned order on the premise that transaction being void, the limitation would not apply and both authorities are justified in holding that the transaction violates the aforementioned provisions of Act of 1978. 8. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti (supra) has held that application for resumption of land on the ground of violation of the provisions of Act of 1978, has to be filed within a reasonable period. 10. In instant case, an application was filed 18 years after the first sale and 16 years after the second 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16112 WP No. 104208 of 2024 sale; and the application is filed by the legal representatives of the original grantee. 11. This being the position, the Court is of the view that the delay and latches on the part of the vendor or the son of the vendor, would come in the way of making an application for resumption of land. 12. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. Impugned order dated 03.07.2024 passed by respondent No.1 marked at Annexure-K and impugned order dated 06.02.2024 passed by respondent No.2 marked at Annexure-H are quashed. iii. In case petitioner's name is not entered in the property records, same shall be entered within 30 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16112 WP No. 104208 of 2024 days from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AM CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 7