- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16078 WP No. 110430 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 110430 OF 2014 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. JEERA NAIK S/O LALYA NAIK, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S, SHRI. GUDYA NAIK S/O JEERA NAIK, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: 13/1, MAGAL TANDA VILLAGE, HUVIN HADAGALI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. 2. SHRI. RAMA NAIK S/O JEERA NAIK AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: 13/1, MAGAL TANDA VILLAGE, HUVIN HADAGALI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. H.R. HOOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 1a. SHRI. KAJANUR RAJESAB SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S SHRI. K. RAJASAHEB S/O RAJASAHEB KAJANUR AGE. 75 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O: IYYANAHALLI VILLAGE, HUVIN HADAGALI TALUKA, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1b. SMT. K. KAIRUNBI W/O K. RAJASAHEB AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O: IYYANAHALLI VILLAGE, HUVIN HADAGALI TALUKA, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1c. SHRI. K. ABDUL AHMEED S/O K. RAJASAB AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O: IYYANAHALLI VILLAGE, HUVIN HADAGALI TALUKA, BALLARI DISTRICT. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.11.26 11:35:31 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16078 WP No. 110430 of 2014 1d. SMT. SAYEEDBANU D/O K. RAJASAB AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: IYYANAHALLI VILLAGE, HUVIN HADAGALI TALUKA, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1e. SHRI. K IKBAL S/O K. RAJASAB AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O: IYYANAHALLI VILLAGE, HUVIN HADAGALI TALUKA, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1f. SMT. KATUNBI D/O K. RAJASAB AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: IYYANAHALLI VILLAGE, HUVIN HADAGALI TALUKA, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1g. SMT. HAJARIBI D/O K. RAJASAB AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: IYYANAHALLI VILLAGE, HUVIN HADAGALI TALUKA, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1h. SHRI. VAJIDALI S/O K. RAJASAB AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O: IYYANAHALLI VILLAGE, HUVIN HADAGALI TALUKA, BALLARI DISTRICT. 1i. SHRI. SHAHIDALI S/O K. RAJASAB AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OF BALLARI, DISTRICT: BALLARI. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF HOSPET, DIVISION HOSPETE TALUK, HOSPETE TALUKA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH N. MISALE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R2 AND R3; SMT. AFSHAN A. SHABASHKHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1(b) TO R1(i)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO THE NECESSARY ORDER DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI MAY KINDLY BE PASSED TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND THEREBY QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 I.E. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BALLARI IN THE APPEAL NO.67/06-07 DATED 01.10.2007 AND ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 I.E. ASST. COMMISSIONER, HOSPETE IN THE N.S NO.2/81-82 DATED 25.11.81 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND E RESPECTIVELY AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16078 WP No. 110430 of 2014 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, 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 dated 01.10.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner - respondent No.2 and also the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 2. The Assistant Commissioner - respondent No.3 in terms of the order dated 25.11.1981 has rejected the petitioner's claim for resumption of land for violation of Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('PTCL Act, 1978'). The Deputy Commissioner in terms of the impugned order at Annexure - D has dismissed the appeal on 01.10.2007. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the property was granted to their ancestors vide grant order dated 27.10.1960 and later, the property was sold on 24.07.1975 in the name of respondent No.1 and it is alleged that the sale transaction is within 15 years from the date of grant and the transaction also violates the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16078 WP No. 110430 of 2014 4. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the impugned orders. 5. In terms of the order dated 25.11.1981, the Assistant Commissioner has recorded a finding that the property in question was granted on 27.06.1960 with the condition that the property should not be alienated for a period of 15 years. It is noticed that the first transaction took place on 24.07.1975 i.e. after the expiry of 15 years from the date of grant and more importantly, before the commencement of PTCL Act, 1978. For this reason, the Assistant Commissioner has held that the transaction is not hit by the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978. 6. The legal representatives of the original grantee filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2006- 07 i.e., after lapse of 25 years from the date of the order. The Deputy Commissioner has confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and has held that the transaction is not hit by the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978 as the property is sold after the expiry of non-alienation clause and before the commencement of PTCL Act, 1978. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16078 WP No. 110430 of 2014 7. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the said orders. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN, CT:VP LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 9