- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31384 WP No. 19003 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 19003 OF 2026 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MUNIKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE. PILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL - 562 165. ALSO AT: RAMANAHALLI, JONNAHALLI, REDDIHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL - 562 129. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVISHA M.G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BIRASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, PIN - 562 110. Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31384 WP No. 19003 of 2026 3. SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY, S/O ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL - 562 165. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. AMITHA N., AGA FOR R1 AND R2 VIDE ORDER DATED 24.06.2026, NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED SALE PERMISSION ORDER NO.BRDC-LNDGOLNDD/102/2025, DATED 24.07.2025 AND DIGITALLY SIGNED ON 28.07.2025, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, I.E. ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY, AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31384 WP No. 19003 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The case of the petitioner is that one Pillappa was granted lands on the ground that he belonged to the Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes community. The said Pillappa is said to be the common ancestor of both the petitioner as well as respondent No.3. It is further submitted that the said Pillappa executed a Sale Deed in favour of one Ramaiah during the year 1961-62, in violation of the non-alienation clause mentioned in the grant. Subsequently, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner initiated proceedings under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 and has restored the land in favour of Anjanappa, the elder son of Pillappa and the father of respondent No.3. In the year 2025, the petitioner has filed a partition suit (O.S.No.759/2025), wherein he has requested for partitioning the family properties including the property which is the subject matter of the writ petition. However, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31384 WP No. 19003 of 2026 behind the back of the petitioner, respondent No.3 has taken permission from respondent No.2 to alienate the suit schedule property. 2. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed with the following prayers: "a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI or any other appropriate writ, Order, or direction, quashing the Impugned Sale Permission Order No.BRDC- LNDGOLNDD/102/2025, dt:24.07.2025 and digitally signed on 28.07.2025, passed by the Respondent No.2 the Special Deputy Commissioner, i.e., ANNEXURE-A in respect of Schedule Property, and; b) DECLARE that any subsequent alienation or transaction pursued by Respondent No.3 under the guise of ANNEXURE-A Impugned Permission is bad in law, non-binding, and void under the provisions of the PTCL Act; and c) PASS such other reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity." 3. Admittedly, the dispute between the parties to the original suit pertains to the partition of the property which is the subject matter of the present writ petition. As - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31384 WP No. 19003 of 2026 the non-alienation period had already over and upon the request of respondent No.3, respondent No.2 has considered the same and granted permission to sell. No fault can be found in the impugned order passed by respondent No.2. However, that permission pertains to only permitting the sale of the property concerned and not recognizing or conferring a right upon respondent No.3 to enjoy the property, which is the subject matter of the writ petition by himself. If the petitioner is having any right, title or interest over the same, he is always at liberty to agitate the same before the appropriate Court in the original suit is said to have been filed by him. 4. Reserving liberty to the petitioner as aforementioned and also subject to the observations made herein above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH