- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18151 WP No. 104205 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 104205 OF 2024 (SCST) BETWEEN: KASAVANAHALLI IMAM SAB S/O. LATE KHASIM SAB, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS. 1. SMT. FATHIMABI W/O. LATE KASAVANAHALLI IMAM SAB, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. RAMANAGARA VILLAGE, ARASIKERE HOBLI, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583131. 2. TARA BI D/O LATE KASAVANAHALLI IMAM SAB, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O VENKATESHWARA NAGARA, CHALLAKERE TOWN-577522, DIST: CHITRADURGA. 3. JABIULLA KHAN S/O LATE KASAVANAHALLI IMAM SAB, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O RAMANAGARA VILLAGE, ARASIKERE HOBLI, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583131. 4. SIRAJ @ RIYAZ S/O LATE KASAVANAHALLI IMAM SAB, AGE: 30 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O RAMANAGARA VILLAGE, ARASIKERE HOBLI, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583131. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.19 16:10:03 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18151 WP No. 104205 of 2024 5. BHANU BI D/O LATE KASAVANAHALLI IMAM SAB, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O KHANAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI-583135. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HOSPET, DISTRICT: VIJAYNAGAR-583201. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HARAPANAHALLI SUB DIVISION, HARAPANAHALLI-583131, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, HARAPANAHALLI, TQ: HARAPANAHALLI-583131, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR. 4. SRI. RAMESH R. S/O. RAMANJANEYA, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. ANAJI GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE, ANAGODU HOBLI, TQ AND DIST: DAVANAGERE-577001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1-R3; SRI. S.K. KAYAKMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 03.07.2024 IN NO.APPEAL/PTCL/07/2023-24 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2024 IN NO.PTCL (H.HALLI)/CR/02-2022 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18151 WP No. 104205 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondents. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 06.02.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, who allowed the application filed by the contesting private respondents for resumption of the land on the premise that the sale transaction by the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No.2 to 5 violated the provisions of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of. Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (‘the Act of 1978’, for short). The Deputy Commissioner has also dismissed the petitioners’ appeal vide order dated 03.07.2024 and has held that the transaction is hit by the provisions of the Act of 1978. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18151 WP No. 104205 of 2024 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that, the land in question was granted to the seller’s father on 15.10.1957, and the grantee’s children sold the property on 04.11.1999 to the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of the remaining petitioners. The mutation is duly certified and husband of petitioner No.1 has come in possession of the property, and after the demise of the husband of petitioner No.1, the petitioners are in possession of the property. 4. It is submitted that the children of the vendor raised a dispute in the year 2022 for the first time for resumption of the land on the premise that the transaction in question is hit by the provisions of the Act of 1978. It is the contention that the dispute raised 22 years after the transaction dated 04.11.1999 is hit by delay and laches, and the ratio in the case of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18151 WP No. 104205 of 2024 Nekkanti Ram Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and Others1 would squarely apply to the facts of the case. 5. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents would oppose the petition, on the premise that no permission is obtained before purchase of land. 6. Learned Government Advocate would defend the impugned order on the premise that the transaction is in violation of Section 4 of the Act of 1978. 7. Admittedly, permission was not obtained before purchasing the property, and the respondent authorities are justified in holding that the transaction has violated the provisions of the Act of 1978 and thereby justified in allowing the application seeking resumption of land, in the submission. 8. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18151 WP No. 104205 of 2024 9. Admittedly, the property in question was granted in the year 1957. The grantee’s son sold the property on 04.11.1999, and the records were mutated in the name of the purchaser. For the first time the dispute was raised in 2022. Initially, the children of the grantee, i.e., the children of the vendor, raised a dispute in the year 2017 before the Assistant Commissioner to enter their names in the property records. Later, in the year 2022, they filed an application for resumption of the grant. 10. It is noticed that the transaction is of the year 1999, and the dispute is raised for the first time after 18 years. This being the position, the ratio in the case of Nekkanti Ram Lakshmi (supra) would apply to the facts of the case, and accordingly, the impugned orders are required to be set aside. 11. Hence, the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18151 WP No. 104205 of 2024 ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 03.07.2024 in Appeal/PTCL/07/2023-24 passed by respondent No.1 produced at Annexure-J and the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 in No.PTCL(H.Halli)/ CR/02-2022 passed by respondent No.2 produced at Annexure-G, are quashed. iii. The petitioners’ names are to be restored in the property records, within 30 days, if deleted pursuant to the impugned orders. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE gab CT-MCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 42