- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5096 WP No. 106978 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 106978 OF 2024 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: SRI. M. MASTAN RAO S/O. M. RAGHAVALU, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: DEVI NAGAR CAMP, 19TH WARD, SIRUGUPPA ROAD, TQ AND DIST: BALLARI – 583104. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H. R. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI DIST. BALLARI 583101. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SDM, BALLARI SUB-DIVISION, DIST: BALLARI – 583121. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, TQ: SIRUGUPPA, SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI - 583 121. 4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, TEKKALAKOTE HOBLI, TEKKALAKOTE - 583122 TQ: SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5096 WP No. 106978 of 2024 5. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT MALAPURA VILLAGE - 583 120, TQ: SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI. 6. THE SUB-REGISTRAR TQ: SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI - 583 121. 7. SRI. H. TAYANNA S/O. SANNA HULUGAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: MALAPURA VILLAGE - 583 120 TQ: SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R6) --- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI AT BALLARI IN NO.PTCL/22/2024 DATED 12.06.2024 AT ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 NAMELY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SDM BALLARI AT BALLARI IN NO.PTCL/77/2022-23 DATED 20.10.2023 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5096 WP No. 106978 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 12.06.2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ballari, produced as per Annexure-A, and also the order dated 20.10.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Ballari, produced as per Annexure-B. 2. Heard Sri. H. R. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 6. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the land bearing Survey No.16/1, measuring 4.03 acres, situated at Malapur Village, in Tekkalakote Hobli, Siruguppa Taluk, Ballari District, was granted in favor of late Sri.Harijana Durgappa, as - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5096 WP No. 106978 of 2024 per the order dated 29.07.1982. Initially, he was cultivating the land. Later, he executed a registered General Power of Attorney, in favor of the petitioner on 27.04.2010, and subsequently, on 14.11.2017, Durgappa executed a registered sale deed and sold the property to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner became the absolute owner and is in possession of the land. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that, respondent No.7, who is a stranger to the family of Durgappa, has filed an application dated 17.03.2023, seeking re- grant of the land. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the application and ordered to take back the land under Section 5(1)(b) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (‘PTCL Act’, for short), and accordingly ordered deletion of the name of the petitioner from the Record of Rights. The petitioner challenged the same before the Deputy - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5096 WP No. 106978 of 2024 Commissioner, who passed the impugned order dismissing the appeal and confirming the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, however, he modified the same to the extent of directing the Tashildar to identify the legal heirs of the original grantee and restore the land to them. The Deputy Commissioner also ordered that, in case the original grantee is not survived by any legal heirs, the said land shall be distributed following the procedure as laid down in the Land Grant Rules, 1969, to a person belonging to the SC community only. This order is challenged before this Court. 5. From the materials on record, it is clear that, both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have rejected the claim of respondent No.7 for re- grant of the land. The impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner discloses that, since the mandatory permission required under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act was not obtained by the petitioner, to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5096 WP No. 106978 of 2024 purchase the land under the sale deed, he passed the impugned order. 6. Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act reads as that; 4. Prohibition of transfer of granted lands.- (1) xxxxxxxx (2)No person shall, after the commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer, any granted land, without the previous permission of the Government”. 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this restriction applies only for a period of 15 years, during which the transfer or alienation is prohibited. But he failed to substantial his contention. A plain reading of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act does not suggest such meaning that the restriction is applicable only for a period of 15 years during which there is prohibition on alienation of the property. Therefore, I do not accept the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5096 WP No. 106978 of 2024 8. The next contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, an enquiry will have to be held by the Assistant Commissioner to ascertain as to whether the grant was made in favour of person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, whether the grant was either on upset price or re- grant, or for a lesser than upset price, and as to whether the alienation has taken place within the period of prohibition prescribed under the Act. He places reliance on the decision of this Court in Pedda Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka1 in support of his contention. 9. The facts of the said case as stated in para 4 is entirely different. In the said case, the grant was made on 23.06.1956. The grantee sold the land on 30.07.1966. After coming into force of PTCL Act, the grantee made an application before the Assistant Commissioner for declaration that, the sale was void 1 ILR 1993 KAR 551 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5096 WP No. 106978 of 2024 because it was effected within the period of prohibition on alienation as contained in the rules. Under such circumstances, the Assistant Commissioner had proceeded to pass the order which was challenged before this Court. In the present case, the grant was as per order dated 29.07.1982. Initially, the GPA is said to have been executed in favour of the petitioner by the grantee on 27.04.2010. Subsequently, a Sale Deed was executed on 14.11.2017 under which the petitioner is claiming right. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the restriction under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act is only applicable during the period of prohibition on alienation, the same is not justified in any manner. Hence the said argument is not acceptable. 10. With regard to his contention that the Assistant Commissioner will have to hold an enquiry to find out as to whether the grant was granted to the person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, in - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5096 WP No. 106978 of 2024 the impugned order Annexure-D, the Assistant Commissioner has framed as many as 5 points and after holding an enquiry, held that the land in question was a Government land, granted in favour of Durgappa Harijan S/o. Mallamma as per order dated 29.07.1982 under Section 77 of Land Reforms Act. It is held that the land in question is covered under PTCL Act as the same was granted to the grantee belonging to Scheduled Caste and it is also observed that the land in question was not alienable permanently. The Assistant Commissioner has also held that the petitioner being the purchaser had never taken permission to purchase the property. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Assistant Commissioner has not held any enquiry as required under law. Therefore, the order impugned passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the order of the Deputy Commissioner confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner are well-reasoned orders and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5096 WP No. 106978 of 2024 Hence, the petitioner shall fail in this petition and accordingly I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE gab, mkm CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3