- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16114 WP No. 104196 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.104196 OF 2024 (SCST) BETWEEN: SRI. K. MAJID SAB S/O KHASIM SAB AND IMAMBI, AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. RAMANAGARA VILLAGE, ARASIKERE HOBLI, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583 131. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HOSAPET, 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. SR. P.V. NARASIMHA S/O P.V. VEERABHADRAPPA, AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. ANAJI GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE, ANAGODU HOBLI, TQ. DAVANAGERE-577 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.07.2024 IN NO.APPEAL/PTCL/01/2023-24 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J AND ALSO TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2024 IN NO.PTCL (H.HALLI)/CR/104-2022 (PTCL 11/2022) PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.11.26 11:35:27 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16114 WP No. 104196 of 2024 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 3. Respondent No.4 -the contesting private party, though served, is 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 12.03.2024 passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner. 3. In terms of order dated 12.03.2024, respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner on an application filed by respondent No.4 resumed the land and directed re-grant in favour of respondent No.4, who is the son of the seller, who sold the land under two - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16114 WP No. 104196 of 2024 registered sale deeds dated 10.12.2001 and 04.05.2002. The property sold is Sy.No.487/1 in Chatinahalli village, Arasikere Hobli, Harappanahalli Taluk. 4. Respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner had dismissed appeal confirming order passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner. 5. Both authorities have held that the sale transaction dated 10.12.2001 in respect of 1 Acre 79 cents and sale transaction dated 04.05.2002 in respect of 2 Acre, 50 Cents 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16114 WP No. 104196 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. In the said case, application was made 17 years after the sale. 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16114 WP No. 104196 of 2024 10. In instant case, an application was filed 21 years after the first sale and 20 years after the second sale; and the application is filed by the grandson 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-J and impugned order dated 12.03.2024 passed by respondent No.2 marked at Annexure-F are quashed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16114 WP No. 104196 of 2024 iii. In case petitioner's names are not entered in the property records, same shall be entered within 30 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.: 6