- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32906 WP No. 3067 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 3067 OF 2024 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI B HAPPU SINGH, SON OF LATE BHOPAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1070, K R HOSPITAL ROAD, LUSHKAR MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAKAMAPURMATH CHIDANANDAYYA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU - 570 001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSURU SUB DIVISION, MYSURU - 575 001 3. THE THASILDAR MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU - 570 001 4. SRI CHIKKAJAVARAIAH S/O LATE JAVARAIAH, R/O BHUGATHAHALLI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSRURU TALUK, Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32906 WP No. 3067 of 2024 MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU - 570 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA N.,AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. CHRISTOPHER NOEL A.,ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS, WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 15.12.2023 IN PTCL NO.8/2017-18 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1. QUASH ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 15.12.2023 IN PTCL NO.8/2017-18 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1, AND CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISS THE REVISION PETITION IN PTCL.NO.8/2017-18 FILED BY R4 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.1, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The petitioner is the purchaser of the land, which is the subject matter of the writ petition. The persons, from whom the petitioner has purchased the land, belong to the Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes. However, it is the contention of the petitioner that the land - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32906 WP No. 3067 of 2024 was granted to his predecessor-in-title under the Grow More Food Scheme (for short, 'the GMF Scheme') and not because, the said person belonged to the Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes. It is also submitted that it was not a free grant but was sold at an upset price. It is submitted that the land was conveyed in favour of his predecessor-in-title in the year 1969 and that the petitioner purchased the same in the year 2005. The vendor of the petitioner had no objection for the said transaction. However, one Chikkajavaraiah claiming to be a member of an organization interested in the welfare of the Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes made a representation to respondent No.2 that the land purchased by the petitioner violates the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act'). Based upon the said representation, respondent No.2 took up the proceedings as a suo moto proceedings under Section 5 of the PTCL Act and conducted an enquiry. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32906 WP No. 3067 of 2024 He came to the conclusion that, the land was conveyed under the GMF Scheme and it was not a granted land and ended the proceedings in favour of the petitioner herein. 3. Aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner, the said Chikkajavaraiah, who had given a complaint against the petitioner, preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 has passed the following order: "ಆೇಶ ೕಲ ನ ಾಗಶ: ಪರಸೆ. ಪತ ೖಸೂರು ಉಪಾಾ !ಾಗಳ ಆೇಶ ಸಂ$ೆ% &.'..ಎ) (ಅ) 39/2014-15 +,ಾಂಕ 3.5.2017 ರ ಅೇಶವನು ರದು0ಪ1ೆ. ಪಕರಣವನು ಉಪಾಾ !ಾ, ೖಸೂರು ರವೆ 3ಂ4ರು5ಸು6ಾ7 ಪಕರಣದ ಸ847ನ ಮೂಲ ಮಂಜೂ;ಾ4 ಕಡತಗ=ೆ>ಂ+ೆ ಪೕ?, ಅ@Aಾರರು ಮೂಲ ಮಂಜೂ;ಾ4ಾರರ ಬದC Dಾರಸುಾರ;ೇ? ಎಂಬ ಬೆE ಪೕ?!ೊಂಡು &'ಎ) !ಾFೆಯ ಉೆ0ೕಶಗಳನು ಗಮನದ?HಟುJ!ೊಂಡು ಸೂಕ7 ಆೇಶ Kೊರ1ಸಲು LೇAೆ. ಮುಂದುವ;ೆದು, ಎಂ ಆM 363/2005-06 ೕ6ಾ% ಕಯದ $ಾ6ೆ ವNಾ ಆ5ದ0ರೂ, ತಹೕPಾ0ರರು ಅವರ ಅ !ಾರ Dಾ%&7 Qೕ ಕಯದಂ6ೆ $ಾ6ೆ ವಾAವRೆೆ ಆೇದು0, ತ&SತಸTರ ರುದ0 ಕಮ!ೈೊಳUVವ ಕುತು ಸೂಕ7 ಪWಾ7ವ,ೆಯನು ಈ ಆೇಶDಾದ 15 +ವಸೊಳೆ ವರ+ ಸ?Hಸಲು ಸೂYೆ. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32906 WP No. 3067 of 2024 ಈ ಆೇಶವನು ಉಕ7Pೇಖನ Lೕ1 ಗಣ[ೕಕರಣ \ಾ1 6ೆರದ ,ಾ%]ಾಲಯದ?H +,ಾಂಕ 15.12.2023 ರಂದು ^ೂೕ_ೆ. @PಾH !ಾ ೖಸೂರು @PೆH, ೖಸೂರು." 4. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. During the pendency of the proceedings, I.A.No.1/2024 for impleadment is filed by certain persons claiming to be the legal heirs of the original vendor of the petitioner herein. 5. The case of the petitioner is that the land is granted under GMF Scheme and hence, the proceedings under the PTCL Act are not attracted. Even otherwise, it is submitted that the proceedings in front of respondent No.1 has been initiated at the behest of Chikkajavaraiah, who had no locus standi and respondent No.1 should not have entertained the appeal. It is further submitted that, the impleading applicants in their affidavit though claim to be the legal heirs or distant relatives of the vendor of the petitioner have not produced any documents to show that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32906 WP No. 3067 of 2024 the vendor of the petitioner has died and that they are indeed the relatives of the said vendor. 6. The learned Additional Government Advocate, upon instructions, submits that she is not sure whether it is a land granted in favour of the vendor of the petitioner under the GMF Scheme or whether it is a land granted in favour of the vendor of the petitioner because he happened to be a person belonging to the Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes. She further submits that what has been ordered by respondent No.1 is only a remand and a fresh enquiry by respondent No.2 could not cause any harm. On the said ground, she prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. If the land is granted under the GMF Scheme for an upset price, then in that event, the provisions of the PTCL Act are not attracted. Even presuming the land is a granted land in favour of the vendor of the petitioner, because he belongs to a Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes, the grant will have to be considered to be of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32906 WP No. 3067 of 2024 year 1969 and the sale has taken place in the year 2005, after a lapse of around 39 years, much after a lapse of 15 years of non-alienation period. Under the circumstances, the only ground of challenge can be no permission was taken from the government. 8. The learned Additional Government Advocate is unable to answer what are the grounds on which the State would refuse permission for sale of the land under these circumstances. Admittedly, there are no circulars or guidelines issued by the State in this regard. 9. Even otherwise, the vendor of the petitioner did not challenge the sale. A complaint has been made by one Chikkajavaraiah, who is unconnected with the property. Respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner, under the circumstances, has rightly considered the proceedings to be suo moto in nature and has enquired into the transaction and has passed an order in favour of the petitioner. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32906 WP No. 3067 of 2024 10. Under the circumstances, an appeal could have been filed only by the State, the grantee or anybody claiming under the grantee, if the grantee was dead by then. The said Chikkajavaraiah (respondent No.4) had no locus standi to file an appeal before respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 could not have entertained the said appeal. Furthermore, the impleading applicant filed by certain persons claiming to be the legal heirs of the original grantee does not contain necessary material to show that the original grantee is dead and indeed they are the legal heirs of the said grantee. 11. Under the circumstances, as respondent No.1 ought not to have entertained the appeal filed by respondent No.4, the same is liable to be set aside. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is hereby disposed of. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32906 WP No. 3067 of 2024 ii. The impugned order dated 15.12.2023 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition, is hereby set aside. iii. The impleading application filed by the impleading applicants is hereby dismissed. iv. Pending I.As., if any, stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25