- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14222-DB WA No. 100542 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. WRIT APPEAL NO.100542 OF 2024 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MALLAVVA D/O JAYAVANT HARIJAN, AFTER MARRIAGE MALLAVVA W/O SOMALINGAPPA MADAR, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. LABOR, 2. FAKKIRAPPA S/O JAYAVANT HARIJAN AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. LABOR, 3. SMT. NINGAVVA W/O YALLAPPA KANAVI AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. LABOR, 4. SMT. KAREVVA W/O JAYAVANT HARIJAN AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. LABOUR, ALL ARE R/O HASARAMBI, POST MUTTAGERI, TQ. KALAGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD-581204. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. V.M. SHEELAVANTH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14222-DB WA No. 100542 of 2024 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD-580001. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD-580001. 4. TAHSILDAR, HUBBALLI-580020. 5. SMT. BHARATI W/O VISHNU DANI AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O HOUSING BOARD COLONY, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580023. 6. RAJESHWARI D/O VISHNU DANI AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O HOUSING BOARD COLONY, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580023. 7. KAVITHA D/O VISHNU DANI AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O HOUSING BOARD COLONY, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580023. 8. VISHAL S/O VISHNU DANI AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O HOUSING BOARD COLONY, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580023. 9. SWATHI D/O VISHNU DANI AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O HOUSING BOARD COLONY, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580023. 10. SRI. VICKY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14222-DB WA No. 100542 of 2024 S/O VISHNU DANI AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O HOUSING BOARD COLONY, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580023. 11. SMT. SNEHA W/O UMESH METHRANI AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O HOUSING BOARD COLONY, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580023. 12. MANJUNATH S/O RAMACHANDRA BOJGAR AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MEDAR ONI, HUBBALLI-580020. 13. JEETU S/O RAMACHANDRA BOJGAR AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O MEDAR ONI, HUBBALLI-580020. 14. SMT. SHASHIKALA HATEL BABU BOJGAR AGE. MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEWIFE/AGRICULTURE, R/O MEDAR ONI, HUBBALLI-580020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1964, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26-03-2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO.108013/2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14222-DB WA No. 100542 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) This intra-Court appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is directed against order dated 26.03.2024 passed in WP No.108013/2023, whereunder the appellants’ writ petition questioning the order dated 24.08.2022 passed by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner rejecting their request for restoration of land under the provisions of Karnataka SC/ST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 19781 and confirmed by the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 25.05.2023, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. V.M. Sheelavant for learned counsel Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik for the appellants and learned AGA Sri. Sharad V Magadum for the respondents No.1 to 4. Perused the entire writ appeal papers. 3. The appellants claimed that they are the grand children of one Durgappa Kalappa Madar, who is said to have 1For short ‘PTCL Act’ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14222-DB WA No. 100542 of 2024 been granted the land on 15.3.1939. The father of the appellants/petitioners sold the said land in favour of the husband of respondent No.5 under two different sale deeds dated 3.4.1979. Thereafter, respondent No.4/Tahsildar initiated suo-moto proceedings under Section 5 of the PTCL Act and by order dated 27.9.2002 restored the land in question to the appellants, against which respondent No.5 filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner under order dated 16.5.2005 confirmed the order passed by the Tahsildar. Both the orders of Tahsildar as well as the Assistant Commissioner were the subject matter of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 23.02.2008 remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. On fresh consideration, the Assistant Commissioner held that the sale deed is null and void and ordered for restoration of land in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the private respondents preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner noting that the suit is pending before the Civil - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14222-DB WA No. 100542 of 2024 Court, directed the parties to maintain status-quo till disposal of the said suit. It is to be noted that the purchaser of the property filed OS No.400/2012, which was dismissed by the Trial Court and the appeal in RA No.171/2016 also came to be dismissed. The purchaser of the property approached the writ Court in WP No.105874/2016 questioning the order of the Deputy Commissioner, which was allowed by this Court and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the restoration proceedings, which was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner under order dated 25.5.2023 at Annexure-M. Questioning the said order of the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioners were before this Court in WP No.108013/2023 contending that the orders passed by both the Authorities are contrary to the material on record and the conclusion reached by the Authorities that the grant made in favour of grand-father of the petitioners would not attract PTCL Act is totally erroneous. The learned Single Judge under impugned order dated 26.3.2024 dismissed the writ petition confirming the orders of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14222-DB WA No. 100542 of 2024 the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Assistant Commissioner. Challenging the said dismissal of writ petition, the petitioners are before this Court in the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel Sri. V.M. Sheelavant for the appellants/petitioners would contend that the petitioners and their grand-father in whose favour grant was made belonged to Schedule Caste and as such, for the land granted to them, the provisions of PTCL Act would be applicable. It is submitted that there was no material on record to come to a conclusion that the provisions of PTCL Act would not apply. It is further submitted that the sale had taken place subsequent to the PTCL Act came into force and as such, the provisions of PTCL Act would be applicable. Since the sale has taken place in contravention of PTCL Act, thus, it is prayed for allowing the appeal and consequently the writ petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the considered view that no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge for the reasons recorded below: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14222-DB WA No. 100542 of 2024 a) The appellants claimed that the land in question was granted to their grand-father Durgappa Kalappa Madar on 15.3.1939. It is not in dispute that the petitioners and their grand-father belonged to Scheduled Caste category. Admittedly, no Grant Certificate or any other iota of document is placed on record to establish that the grant was under the provisions of PTCL Act or any other provisions of law akin to PTCL Act. Nowhere it is stated as to the purpose for which the land was granted and the conditions attached to such grant. In the absence of such material, only because the petitioners or their grand-father belong to Schedule Caste category, it cannot be said the land in question would attract the provisions of PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner in his order dated 24.08.2022 (Annexure-K) on consideration of material on record has rightly observed as under: “ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ EªÀgÀ DzÉñÀ £ÀA.¦n¹J¯ï/J¦/1/2002-03 ¢£ÁAPÀ 24-09-2012 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14222-DB WA No. 100542 of 2024 £ÉÃzÀÝgÀ°è J¸ï.¹/J¸ï.n ¥ÀAUÀqÀUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄAdÆj ªÀiÁrzÀ d«ÄãÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ PÁgÀtPÉÌ ªÀÄAdÆgÁVzÉ C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV PÁt¸ÀzÉà ºÁUÀÆ CAvÀºÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀzÉà CzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ aÃnAiÀÄ ªÉÄðAzÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ d«ÄãÀÄ CAvÀºÀ ¥ÀAUÀqÀUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÁV¢AiÉÆà E®èªÉÇà C£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV PÁt¸ÀzÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ DzÉñÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è CqÀPÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸À®Ä §gÀ¯ÁgÀzÀÄ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÁªÁ d«ÄãÀÄ ¸ÁévÀAvÀæ §gÀĪÀ ¥ÀǪÀðzÀ°èAiÉÄà d«ÄãÀÄ E®èzÀªÀjUÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄðAzÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁVzÀÄÝ eÁåw DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ d«ÄãÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ jmï £ÀA.105874/2016 ¢£ÁAPÀ:08-04-2021 gÀ°è ªÀiÁrzÀ DzÉøÀzÀ ¥ÀÅl ¸ÀASÉå 6 RArPÉ 8 GzÁºÀj¹ ¥ÀæRgÀªÁzÀ ªÀÄAdÆj DzÉñÀUÀ¼À ¥Àæw EgÀzÉ EgÀĪÁUÀ EzÉ CAvÁ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ ªÀiÁrzÀ DzÉñÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CAvÀºÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ¦n¹J¯ï PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PɼÀUÉ §gÀ¯ÁgÀzÀÄ CAvÁ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.” b) It is also not known as to what was the non-alienation clause imposed while granting the land. Normally, under the Land Revenue Code, it would be 15 years non-alienation clause. In the present case, the grant is of the year 1939 and the sale had taken place in the year 1979, nearly 40 years from the date of grant. Therefore, it cannot be said that the sale is during the non-alienation period. c) Moreover, there is a delay of more than 20 years in initiating the suo-moto proceedings under the provisions of PTCL Act. The first sale has taken place - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14222-DB WA No. 100542 of 2024 on 3.4.1979, whereas suo-moto proceeding is initiated subsequent to the year 2002. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka & Another2, while examining Section 5 of the PTCL Act examined the question of limitation and held that where there is inordinate delay in making application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, such application would not be maintainable and it has further held that the application for restoration and resumption of land should be filed within a reasonable time. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court has made it clear that the tardy and belated claims should not be entertained. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi’s case supra would aptly apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. In the light of above, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has rightly concluded that 2 (2020) 14 SCC 232 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14222-DB WA No. 100542 of 2024 simply because the petitioners and their grand-father belong to Scheduled Caste, it cannot be presumed that the land in question was granted under the provisions of PTCL Act or any Act akin to the PTCL Act. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal and accordingly, writ appeal stands rejected. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE JTR CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 19