- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20850-DB WA No. 1033 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1033 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UDUPI DISTRICT, RAJATHADRI, MANIPAL, UDUPI - 576 104. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KUNDAPURA SUB DIVISION, KUNDAPURA, UDUPI - 5785201. 4. THE TAHSILDHAR, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI 576 101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA) AND: 1. K. VASUDEVA BHAT S/O MAHADEVA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20850-DB WA No. 1033 of 2026 R/AT VISHWAS NAGAR, BAJE ROAD, BOMMARABETTU VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 113. 2. RAJANI ACHARYA W/O BHASKAR ACHARI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT KALIKA NILAYA, DONDERANGADY, BAIRAMPALLI VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 124. 3. B NITHYANANDA PAI S/O B NARAYANA PAI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT BAJE HOUSE, KUKKEHALLI VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 124. 4. MANJUNATH KINI S/O NARAHARI KINI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT RATHABIDI PERDURU VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 124. 5. UMESH SHETTY S/O SUNDARA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT DURGAPARAMESHWARI NILAYA, BAJE ROAD, BOMMARABETTU VILLAGE, UDUPI AND DISTRICT - 576 113 6. SMT SUSHEELA KAMATH, W/O RAGUPATHI KAMATH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20850-DB WA No. 1033 of 2026 R/AT RATHABEEDI, PHALIMARU VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 112 7. RATHNAVARMA, S/O KUMARAYYA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT ANGADI HOUSE, DAREGUDDE, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 575 001. 8. SRI.RAMESH KOTIAN DISTRICT CORRESPONDENT, KARNATAKA DALITHA SANGARHA SAMITHI ® AGED MAJOR, R/AT VISHNUMURTHY NAGAR, KELARKALABETTU VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 105. 9. SRI H DAYANANDA NAIKA, S/O JAGANATHA NAIKA, AGED MAJOR, R/AT FLAT NO.301, SAITHEJA SOLES, 16TH MAIN, 100 FEET ROAD, BEHIND REBOOK SHOWROOM, HVC, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 008. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO i) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:26.06.2025, PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No.22205/2023 (KLR-RES) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION ii) ISSUE ANY OTHER ORDER/DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEM FIT IN - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20850-DB WA No. 1033 of 2026 THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) The State with its instrumentalities is before us in this intra Court appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.22205/2023. 2. Under the impugned order, the Writ Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the order dated 09.08.2021 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure-A), further quashed all further proceedings before respondent Nos.3 and 4 (Annexures-B and C series) and directed the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20850-DB WA No. 1033 of 2026 Revenue Authorities to change the revenue records into the name of petitioners forthwith in a time bound manner. 3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Writ Court. 4. Facts germane to file this appeal are as under: The case of the petitioners before the Writ Court was that they are the purchasers of the land under the Sale Deeds dated 12.01.2016 executed by respondent No.6 (Annexure-D series). Respondent No.6 was serving in Defence and attained superannuation on 25.01.1971. Subsequent to his retirement, he made an application to the Government seeking grant of land under Ex- serviceman Quota. Pursuant to the application, respondent Authorities issued Grant Certificate dated 01.08.1972 (Annexure-E) in favor of respondent No.6 with a clause that there shall not be any alienation within 15 years from the date of Grant. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20850-DB WA No. 1033 of 2026 5. Respondent No.6 after the completion of alienation period of 15 year mentioned in one of the condition of the Grant, made an application to the concerned authorities seeking NOC for transfer of land granted to him under Form-I. Vide order dated 23.03.2010 the respondent authorities rejected the application on the premise that the land comes within the purview of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 19781. An appeal was preferred by respondent No.6 before respondent No.3 which came to be dismissed. The same was called in question before this Court in W.P.No.39653/2010. This Court vide order dated 06.03.2012 (Annexure-F) remanded the matter to the competent authority to reconsider the case of respondent No.6 in accordance with law. 6. After remand, respondent No.2 has passed the order at Annexure-A dated 09.08.2021 again reiterating 1 for short, 'the PTCL Act' - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20850-DB WA No. 1033 of 2026 the same contentions which has already been set-aside and remanded. 7. The Writ Court relied on the Judgment of this Court in SMT. KUMARI VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER2, wherein it has been held that if the Grant in question is not granted under the Depressed Class quota, such grantee cannot be considered as grantee under the provisions of the PTCL Act. The Writ court having gone through the factual aspects of the matter and also considering the earlier order passed by this Court at Annexure-F supra, held that the finding recorded by the respondent Authorities, particularly at Annexures-A and B series and change of katha made as per Annexures-C series are not sustainable and the same are quashed and having found that the petitioners are the purchasers of the land from respondent No.6 under various sale deeds at Annexures-D series, allowed the Writ Petition and quashed orders at Annexure-A, B and C and directed the revenue 2 W.P.No.26018/2022, disposed of on 10.01.2025 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20850-DB WA No. 1033 of 2026 authorities to change the revenue entries in the name of the petitioner in terms of the sale deeds forthwith in a time bound manner and held that the lands granted under Ex-serviceman Quota are not available under the provision of the PTCL Act. It is this order passed by the Writ Court is called in question in this appeal by the State and its instrumentalities. 8. Heard, Sri.M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants. 9. It is not in dispute that the land was allotted to an Ex-serviceman by name Sri.H.Dayanand Naik under Ex- serviceman Quota and not under the Depressed Class Quota. This Court vide order dated 06.03.2012 in W.P.No.39653/2010 (Annexure-F) taking note of the factual aspect on record, allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the order passed by the Revenue Authorities holding that the lands comes under the provisions of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20850-DB WA No. 1033 of 2026 PTCL Act. Paragraph No.4 of the said order reads as under: "4. Apparently, it is to be noticed that the land was granted to the petitioner on the premise that he was Ex-Service man. Indeed, if an application is required to be made for alienation of the land for the statutory period after the Act has come into force, the concerned authorities are required to consider the same in accordance with law. Having said so, I am of the view that the impugned orders warrant interference. Hence, the following order is passed: (i) Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned orders are set-aside and the matter stands remitted to respondent No.3 for fresh disposal in accordance with law. (iii) The petitioner shall make the required application seeking permission of the Competent Authority for alienation, if he chooses to do so." 10. The subject matter in the said Writ Petition was the order passed by the revenue authorities declining to issue NOC for transfer of land after completion of 15 years on the premise that they fall under the provisions of the PTCL Act. The Writ Court having found that the land has been granted to the petitioner therein on the premise that he was Ex-serviceman allowed the Writ Petition and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20850-DB WA No. 1033 of 2026 quashed the impugned order, remitted the matter and issued a direction for consideration of the application. The order passed by this Court in the said Writ Petition has attained finality. 11. The petitioners herein are the purchasers of land as per the Sale Deeds dated 12.01.2016. It is on record that the land has been granted under the Ex- serviceman Quota and not under the Depressed Class Quota, which would not bring the land within the meaning of Granted Lands under Section 3 of the PTCL Act. The Revenue Authorities on misconception of Grant and misreading the provisions of the PTCL Act, held that since the land was claimed by Ex-serviceman belonging to SC/St, as such it comes within the purview of the PTCL Act. At the cost of repetition, as we have already stated supra that this Court way back in 2012 has stated that the land has been granted to Ex-serviceman under Ex- serviceman Quota and not under Depressed Class Quota - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20850-DB WA No. 1033 of 2026 and quashed the order declining to grant NOC to transfer the land. 12. Sri.M.N.Sudev Hegde, more or less argued on the same point which as already been argued before the Writ Court and declined by the Writ Court. To the query of the Court regarding earlier order wherein the finding that the land has been granted under the Ex-serviceman quota and not under Depressed Class quota, as such the land does not fall under the PTCL Act, learned AGA is unable to point out that the land comes within the definition of Section 3 of the Act of 1978 and it is granted under Depressed Class quota. 13. Since the land is granted under Ex-serviceman quota, the Writ court considering this aspect of the matter and relying on the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.39653/2010, so also on the Judgment of SMT.KUMARI supra, allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the impugned orders and directed the revenue - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20850-DB WA No. 1033 of 2026 Authorities to take action on the registered Sale Deeds. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the Writ Court, which would entail this Court to interfere with the order passed by the Writ Court. The Writ Appeal therefore, sans merit and accordingly is, dismissed. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3