- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32153 WP No. 33782 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 33782 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. PAUL RAJ S/O LATE MICHAEL AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT DOOPADAKHAN VILLAGE, LINGAADAHALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK-577129. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SACHIN B S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577101 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TURUVEKERE SUB DIVISION, TURUVEKERE-577101 3. K.BHASKAR RAO, S/O LATE KRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.1072, HOSA MANE EXTENSION, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101 Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32153 WP No. 33782 of 2025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.ANITHA.N.,AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.V.R.KUMBAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.09.2025 IN PTCL/08/2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AS PER ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner, wherein he has set aside the order passed by respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32153 WP No. 33782 of 2025 (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. It is seen that respondent No.1 has merely remanded the matter back to respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner and respondent No.3 afresh. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 fairly submit that they will urge all their contentions before respondent No.2 and the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the case, as expeditiously as possible. 4. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 further submits that the petitioner is a Christian and he is not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the PTCL Act and even that contention may be kept open before respondent No.2. 5. Admittedly, the impugned order merely remands the matter back to respondent No.2 to consider the case afresh. Under the circumstances, also taking into - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32153 WP No. 33782 of 2025 consideration, the fair submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.3, in my opinion, the interest of justice would be met, if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to dispose of the case before him as expeditiously as possible, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Ordered accordingly. 6. It is needless to state that the parties are at liberty to take up all contentions before respondent No.2 including the effect of the petitioner being a Christian and making a claim under the provisions of the PTCL Act. 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66