- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25877 WP No. 39617 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 39617 OF 2013 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MOTHICHAND S/O. THUKKANI SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S. 1(A). SMT. ANWARBAHI W/O. YALANTER D/O. LATE MOTHICHAND AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT GOPANAL VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 1(B). SRI MANJU S/O. LATE MOTHICHAND AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT GOPANAL VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 1(C). SMT. SHAKUNTHALLA W/O. YALANTER D/O. LATE MOTHICHAND AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT GOPANAL VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 1(D). SMT. BARROLI W/O. PAPOTO D/O. LATE MOTHICHAND AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT GOPANAL VILLAGE Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25877 WP No. 39617 of 2013 CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 1(E). SRI MARFFI S/O. LATE MOTHICHAND AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT GOPANAL VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. KUSUMA RANGANATH, ADVOCATE FOR P1(A TO E)) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE - 577 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION DAVANAGERE - 577 001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR CHANNAGIRI TALUK CHANNAGIRI - 577 213. 4. SRI B.M. KANTHARAJ S/O. MARULASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDENT OF GOPANAL VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK - 577 213 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 5. SMT. SUMA W/O. SADASHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS GOPANAL VILLAGE CHANNAGIR TALUK - 577 213 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA N., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI D.R. BASAVARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25877 WP No. 39617 of 2013 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DATED 31.01.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND CONCURRED THE SAME IN THE APPEAL BY RESPONDENT NO.1/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DATED 24.06.2013 AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER As per the pleadings in the writ petition, one Mr. Bellappa after obtaining the necessary permission from the State has sold the granted land. The said Mr. Bellappa, claims ownership of the land based on the strength of the partition deed entered subsequent to the death of the original grantee. After obtaining the permission from the State, he sold the property. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the legal heirs of the original grantee and that said Bellappa is a stranger to the family and he could not have sold the land by obtaining the necessary permission from the State and on the said ground, they initiated proceedings against - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25877 WP No. 39617 of 2013 the subsequent purchasers before the Assistant Commissioner. The claim of the petitioners has been dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner and the same is upheld by the Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Admittedly, there exists a factual dispute as to who is the eligible legal heir of original grantee, which cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as it involves a disputed question of fact. 4. It is not the case of the petitioners that the granted land has been sold without obtaining the necessary permission from the State or within the prohibitory period. It is their case that, Mr. Bellappa was not the legitimate heir of the original grantee and he has sold the property. On the said ground, the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25877 WP No. 39617 of 2013 cannot be invoked to annul the transaction entered into between Mr. Bellappa and the subsequent purchasers. Further, the said Bellappa is not made a party to the proceedings. 5. It is seen that the writ petition is of the year 2013 and even till today, office objections have not been complied with. It only shows that the writ petition has been filed with mala fide intention of making illegal gains at the cost of subsequent purchasers. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed with a cost of ₹25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) payable by the petitioners to the Bengaluru Professionals Benevolent fund ®. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13