- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7235 WP No. 103334 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.103334 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PRAVEENA W/O JAGADISH PAVASKAR, D/O LATE NARAYAN PATANKAR, AGE. 55 YEARS, TEACHER, R/A. C/660/R, BASAVA NAGAR, NEAR PWD IB, HALIYAL, DIST. UTTARA-KANNADA-581329. 2. SMT. SHALINI @ ASHWINI D/O LATE NARAYAN PATANKAR W/O ASHOK JOGALEKAR, AGE. 52 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD, R/A, YELLAPURA ROAD, BAPUJI NAGAR, SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581402. 3. SMT. JAYASHREE @ ANNAPURNA D/O LATE NARAYAN PATANKAR W/O KESHAV PALEKAR AGE. 45 YEARS, TEACHER, R/A NO.301/A, KOTEGALLI, NEAR OLD BUS STAND, SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401. 4. SMT. REKHA MOHAN DESHBHAG D/O LATE NARAYAN PATANKAR AGE. 45 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD, R/A. RAJIV NAGAR, SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAIK SHRINIVAS KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7235 WP No. 103334 of 2025 AND: 1. THE TAHASHILDAR, YELLAPUR, AT. YELLAPUR, DIST. UTTARA-KANNADA-581401. 2. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR YELLAPUR AT YELLAPUR, SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SIRSI, SUB-DIVISION, SIRSI, AT. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581401. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR, AT. OPPOSITE TO RABINDRANATH TAGORE BEACH, ENTRANCE OF KODIBAG, KARWAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13-01-2025, PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KARWAR, IN LND/01/2024, VIDE ANNEXURE- G & ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7235 WP No. 103334 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for the respondents. Learned AGA fairly concedes that this matter can be decided on merits. The captioned writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs:- a. To issue a Writ of Certiorari or order or direction to quash the impugned order dated 13-01-2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar, in LND/01/2024, vide Annexure-G. b. Any other suitable Order/s or Direction/s which the Hon'ble court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of these petitioner/applicants, along with the costs of this petition, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioners are co-sharers in land bearing Survey No. 53 A2, Hissa No. 2, measuring 1 acre out of a total extent of 5 acres, situated at Hitlakaragadde Village, Yellapur Hobli, Yellapur Taluk. The petitioners assert that their ancestors were in unauthorized occupation of the said land, and in furtherance of the same, had submitted an application before the competent authorities seeking regularization of such unauthorized occupation. It is contended that the said - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7235 WP No. 103334 of 2025 application was duly considered, and the occupation was subsequently regularized. 3. The petitioners further state that their father had also obtained a temporary lease or release from the competent authority for the said land. At a later stage, he submitted an application seeking permanent leasehold rights and for regularization of the unauthorized occupation. After conducting a due and proper enquiry, the authorities, vide order dated 23.04.1994, regularized the occupation of the land by the petitioners’ father. A copy of the said order is produced and marked as Annexure-B. 4. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition arises from the rejection of their request to lift the non- alienation clause indicated in Column No. 11 of the regularization order. The said request was rejected by the authorities on the ground that the land in question falls within the ambit of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PTCL Act'). The petitioners contend that although the occupation of the land by their father was initially unauthorized, it was regularized by the competent - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7235 WP No. 103334 of 2025 authority primarily on the ground that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste community. They further submit that the authorities have erroneously refused to lift the non-alienation condition, solely on the presumption that the land is covered under the PTCL Act, without properly appreciating the circumstances under which the regularization was granted. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA appearing for respondent-State. 6. This Court has also given its anxious consideration to the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a case involving identical facts and issues. 7. The records disclose that the petitioners are aggrieved by the endorsement issued by Respondent No.1 – the Tahsildar, Yellapur. The said authority issued an endorsement dated 21.12.2020, as evidenced by Annexure-E, wherein it was stated that the land in question was granted to a member of the depressed class (Scheduled Caste), and therefore, the condition of non-alienation cannot be waived or deleted unless the petitioners obtain prior permission as mandated under Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Scheduled - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7235 WP No. 103334 of 2025 Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PTCL Act'). The said endorsement issued by the Tahsildar has been affirmed by Respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner, as well as by Respondent No.4 – the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioners have challenged these concurrent orders in the present writ proceedings. 8. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to refer to paragraph 58 of the judgment passed in W.P. No. 26018/2022, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The said paragraph reads as follows: “58. If a land is granted because a person is in unauthorised possession, it would be a grant because he was in unauthorised possession and not because he belongs to SC/ST. If the person in unauthorised possession, incidentally, happens to be a person belonging to SC/ST, that grant of land cannot be construed as a land which has been granted because he belongs to the SC/ST.” 9. Upon a careful examination of the records and in light of the legal principles enunciated by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, as referred to supra, this Court is of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7235 WP No. 103334 of 2025 considered opinion that the endorsement issued by Respondent No.1 – Tahsildar, Yellapur, suffers from a fundamental legal infirmity. The endorsement, dated 21.12.2020 and produced at Annexure-E, proceeds on the assumption that the land in question attracts the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act), solely because the petitioners’ father belonged to a Scheduled Caste. This assumption is erroneous and contrary to settled legal principles. 10. The material on record clearly establishes that the petitioners’ father was in unauthorized occupation of the land in question and that such occupation was subsequently regularized by the competent authorities. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, in a judgment dealing with an identical issue, has categorically held that if a person is in unauthorized possession of government land and is later granted regularization, the mere fact that such person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe does not, in itself, render the grant one that falls within the purview of the PTCL Act. The crucial consideration for the applicability of the PTCL Act is whether the land was granted specifically because the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7235 WP No. 103334 of 2025 grantee belonged to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of such a foundational premise, the provisions of the PTCL Act cannot be invoked. 11. In the present case, there is no material to indicate that the land was granted to the petitioners’ father on account of his caste status. On the contrary, the records show that the grant was made by way of regularization of unauthorized occupation. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the Tahsildar that the non-alienation condition must be retained and that permission under Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act must be obtained, is misconceived, legally unsustainable, and without jurisdiction. 12. Consequently, the endorsement dated 21.12.2020 issued by Respondent No.1/Tahsildar (Annexure-E), as well as the concurring orders passed by Respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner and Respondent No.4/Deputy Commissioner, are liable to be quashed and set aside, as they are contrary to law and facts on record. 13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7235 WP No. 103334 of 2025 ORDER a) Writ Petition is allowed. b) Endorsement dated 21.12.2020 issued by Respondent No.1/Tahsildar evidenced at annexure-E, and order dated 13-01-2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar, in LND/01/2024 are hereby quashed. c) Respondent No.1-Tahsildar, Yallapur is hereby directed to re-examine the application tendered by the petitioners, requesting to delete the non-alienation period indicated in the conditions of grant vide Annexure-B. d) This exercise shall be accomplished by respondent No.1-Tahsildar within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE VMB, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14