- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17194 WP No. 60478 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.60478 OF 2010 (SCST) BETWEEN: SHRI ABDULKHADARSAB BIN FAROOQSAB KOTWAL, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MRUTUNJAYA NAGAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. HOOVAMMA W/O RAMACHANDRAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S., SINCE DIED ON 10.05.2013. 1a. SRI. SANTHOSH S.R. S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. #1192, 5TH CROSS, GANDHI NAGAR, DAVANAGERI-577 001. 1b. SMT. ANJINAMMA W/O DANDIGAPPA, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. 3/1160, 5TH CROSS, DAVANAGERI-577 001. 1c. SMT. MALA W/O H.D. MAILAPPA, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. 5TH CROSS, NEAR MATANGEMMA TEMPLE, DAVANAGERE-577 001. 1d. SMT. MAHALKSHMI D/O RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE-577 006. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17194 WP No. 60478 of 2010 1e. SMT. T. ARUNDHATI W/O RAMACHANDRAPPA M.H., AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. #196, 5TH CROSS, GANDHI NAGAR, NEAR MATANGAMMA TEMPLE, DAVANAGERE-577 001. 1f. SMT. SUMA S.R. @ PALLAVI W/O PRADEEP KODVEDLU, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. UDAYAGIRI, KHB COLONY, DHARWAD-580 009. 2. SHRI ABDULMUNAF GOUSE S/O MODINSAB MALLUR, AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC: ELECTRICIAN, R/O. A.P.M.C. ROAD, OPP. TOWN POLICE STATION, RANNEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI. 5. THE TAHASILDAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 6. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R3 TO R6; SRI. G.N. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. PRAKASH BADIGER, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a TO f)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 BEARING NO. PTCL/AP-1/2005-06 DATED 24/12/2009 AS PER ANNEXURE-M BY RESTORING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND L AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17194 WP No. 60478 of 2010 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 24.12.2009. In terms of the said order, the Deputy Commissioner has set-aside the order dated 31.01.2000 and 07.02.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Haveri. 2. The property in question was granted to one Mayappa on 29.09.1956. It is not in dispute that Mayappa belonged to Scheduled Caste. Mayappa died leaving behind his sons and daughters. One of the daughters of Mayappa viz., Huvakka gave consent to enter the names of other legal representatives of Mayappa in the property records. Accordingly, M.E.No.17528 was certified on 27.09.1989 without recording the name of Huvakka in the property records. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17194 WP No. 60478 of 2010 3. On 21.02.1990, the other legal representatives of Mayappa whose names were entered in the property record sold the property to respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 in turn sold the property to the petitioner on 21.03.2000. Based on the sale deed, M.E. No.9558A is certified in the name of the petitioner. 4. It appears, the Tahsildar raised a dispute and matter was referred to the Assistant commissioner for adjudication. It is to be noticed that on 31.01.2000 the Assistant Commissioner has passed an order holding that the transaction dated 21.02.1990 did not violate any of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act, 1978). 5. Thereafter, on 21.03.2000 petitioner purchased the property from respondent no. 2 and by that time there was already an order by the Assistant Commissioner holding that the transaction is valid. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17194 WP No. 60478 of 2010 6. This being the position, the daughter of Mayappa, namely Huvakka raised a dispute before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2004. The Assistant Commissioner passed an order rejecting the claim of Huvakka and held that the transaction is valid and he has also noticed that on 31.01.2000 itself the Assistant Commissioner had already taken a view that the transaction is not hit by the PTCL Act, 1978. 7. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order Huvakka filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, who in terms of impugned order has allowed the appeal and has held that the transaction is hit by the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the first sale transaction outside the family of the grantee was in the year 1990 and there was a dispute raised by the Tahsildar in the year 2000 and the Assistant Commissioner has passed an order holding that the transaction is valid. It is his contention that only after the transaction is held to be valid, the petitioner purchased the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17194 WP No. 60478 of 2010 property and thereafter, Huvakka who did not claim any right over the property after the death of the father, raised a dispute in the year 2004 and claim is hit by delay and latches and the Deputy Commissioner could not have passed the impugned order. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the first transaction in the year 1990 is in violation of the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978 and in the year 2000 the revenue officials rightly noticed the fact that the transaction is hit by the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978 and referred the matter to the Assistant Commissioner. However, the Assistant Commissioner passed an order without issuing notice to Huvakka and held that the transaction is valid and that being the position, Huvakka rightly raised a dispute in the year 2004 alleging violation of the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978 and the Assistant Commissioner erroneously held that the transaction is valid despite the transaction violated Section 4 of the PTCL Act, 1978. Thereafter, Huvakka filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, who has rightly held that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17194 WP No. 60478 of 2010 the transaction is invalid and violates the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 would also contend that merely because Huvakka has given a consent to enter the names of the children of Mayappa, that does not mean that she has lost right over the property. Thus, it is his contention that she is entitled to make an application for resumption of the land and Deputy Commissioner is justified in passing the order. 11. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 12. The fact that the property originally belonged to Mayappa who belonged to Scheduled Caste is not in dispute. The first transaction took place in the year 1990 in terms of registered sale deed dated 21.02.1990. Admittedly, permission was not obtained before selling the property. However, it is relevant to notice that in the year 2000, a dispute was raised by the revenue officials which was decided - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17194 WP No. 60478 of 2010 by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 31.01.2000 and the Assistant Commissioner has held that the transaction is valid and not hit by the provisions of the PTCL Act, 1978. This order is not questioned by any of the children of Mayappa. 13. It is also relevant to notice that when the dispute was raised, it was raised by the revenue officers but not the legal representatives of grantee - Mayappa. This Order dated 31.01.2000 has attained finality. If the daughter of Mayappa, namely, Huvakka is to contend that Huvakka is not party to the proceeding and said proceeding is not initiated by Huvakka, then the challenge by Huvakka in the year 2004 is to be considered as the first challenge after the transaction of 1990. The first challenge took place after 14 years. Hence the ratio in the case of Nekkanti Ramalakshmi vs State of Karnataka And Another1 would apply to the facts of the case and the claim by Huvakka is hit by delay and latches. 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17194 WP No. 60478 of 2010 14. Assuming that the dispute raised by the Revenue officials is also on behalf of the children of the grantee, then the order dated 31.01.2000 having not been questioned has attained finality. The said order operates as res judicata and the Assistant Commissioner in the second proceeding could not have taken a different view when he decided the case in terms of the second order dated 07.02.2005 and he has rightly rejected the claim on the premise that earlier order dated 31.01.2000 has attained finality. Once the said order has attained finality, the Deputy Commissioner could not have reversed the finding on the premise that a transaction is hit by the provisions of the PTCL Act, 1978. 15. Apart from that there is one more angle to the present case. The petitioner in this case has purchased the property on 21.03.2000 under a registered sale deed. When he purchased the property, there was already an order passed by the competent authority which held that the transaction dated 21.2.1990 is a valid transaction and is not governed by the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978. Thus, the petitioner is a - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17194 WP No. 60478 of 2010 bonafide purchaser who has acted as per the order passed by the competent authority. 16. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the claim made by Huvakka is clearly hit by delay and latches and petitioner cannot be penalised for having purchased the property after the order passed by the competent authority which held that the transaction is not hit by the provisions of the PTCL Act, 1978. 17. These factors were not considered by the Deputy Commissioner when the Deputy Commissioner passed the order in the year 2009 and the ratio laid down in Nekkanti Ramalakshmi (supra) was not available for its application. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court is of the view that the impugned order has to be set aside. 18. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17194 WP No. 60478 of 2010 (ii) Impugned order dated 24/12/2009 passed by respondent No.3- Deputy Commissioner is set-aside. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 10