- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18036 WP No. 109493 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 109493 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: V. BASAVANAGOWDA S/O V. BASAVARAJA GOWDA, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. UTTANUR VILLAGE-583 102, TAL. SIRUGUPPA, DIST. BELLARY. … PETITIONER (BY SMT. SURABHI R. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELLARY DISTRICT, BELLARY-583 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BELLARY-583 101. 4. THE TAHASHILDAR, OFFICE OF THE TAHASHILDAR, BELLARY TALUK-583 101, BELLARY. 5. THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB-DIVISION, BELLARY-583 101. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.12.17 12:04:10 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18036 WP No. 109493 of 2025 6. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KARNATAKA GRAMIN BANK, TALUR BRANCH-583 123, SIRUGUPPA TALUK, DISTRICT. BELLARY. 7. STM. BASARAKODU MALLAMMA W/O LATE SRI ERANNA, R/O. UTTANUR VILLAGE-583102, TAL. SIRUGUPPA, DIST. BALLARI. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.08.2024 AND 26.08.2025 OF THE PETITIONER PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-K AND P RESPECTIVELY, PURSUANT TO THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIDE COMMUNICATION DATED 18.09.2024 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-L; ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE COMMUNICATION DATED 08.04.2025 IN NO.SUM/KAM/PAHANI/594/2024-25/E- 250317 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 TO RESPONDENT NO.6 BANK, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE –A; AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.5 TO REGISTER THE SALE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY RECOVERY OFFICER-1, DRT 1, BENGALURU FORTHWITH IN RESPECT OF PETITION PROPERTIES AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18036 WP No. 109493 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5. 3. The petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus to direct the first representation Assistant Commissioner to consider the representations dated 21.08.2024 and 26.08.2025 pursuant to clarification issued by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner vide communication dated 18.09.2024. 4. The petitioner has also sought prayer to quash the communication dated 08.04.2025. 5. In terms of communication dated 08.04.2025 the Assistant Commissioner has refused to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records of the property said to have been purchased by the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner is of the view that the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18036 WP No. 109493 of 2025 1978 (‘Act, 1978’) applies to the transaction and the transaction is hit by the Act, 1978. 6. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is appealable under the provisions of Act, 1978 as the said order is passed in his capacity as quasi-judicial authority. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the Apex Court in M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs The Excise And Taxation Officer-Cum-Assessing Authority & Others1 has held that writ petition is maintainable notwithstanding the alternative remedy in case the question involved is a pure question of law and the petitioner seeks to enforce the statutory right. 8. The Court is not convinced with the submission as the Assistant Commissioner acting in quasi-judicial capacity has taken a view that the transaction referred to by the petitioner in terms of the sale deed is hit by the provisions of the Act, 1978. Whether the Act, 1978 is apply or not depends on the facts. The Deputy Commissioner in his administrative capacity cannot issue any clarification on the orders issued in the quasi-judicial capacity. The 1 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 70 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18036 WP No. 109493 of 2025 orders passed in the quasi-judicial capacity has to be questioned in the manner provided in law. The petitioner could not have approached the Deputy Commissioner seeking a clarification. Assuming that the Deputy Commissioner has issued a clarification on administrative side, petition seeking writ of mandamus to comply the direction issued on administrative side to an authority which has passed an order in quasi-judicial capacity is totally misconceived. 9. No ground is made out to by-pass statutory remedy of appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 10. Hence, without entering into the merits of the matter, the petition is dismissed. 11. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Deputy Commissioner challenging the order at Annexure-A. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS CT:MCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 18