- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010753902025 NC: 2026:KHC:45913 WP No. 34875 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 34875 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. RANGAPPA DIED BY HIS LRS SHARADAMMA W/O SHANKARAPPA D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA 65 YEARS R/AT 368, SOG COLONY BAPUJI VIDYANAGARA DAVANAGERE - 577005. 2. GOWRAMMA W/O BASAPPA D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE TARIKERE TQ, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577228. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH .N.D, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577002. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE-577213. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010753902025 NC: 2026:KHC:45913 WP No. 34875 of 2025 3. THE TAHASILDAR CHENNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213. 4. SRI MRUTHYANJAYA S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 5. T.M SATHISH S/O MRUTHYUNJAYA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 6. T.M. SHIVARAJ S/O T.B. MRUTHUNJAYA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 7. SMT. SHWETA W/O TM SATHISHA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 8. B. ARPITHA W/O TM SHIVARAJ AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R4 TO R8 ARE R/A TAVAREKERE VILLAGE, UBRANI HOBLI CHENNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213. 9. B.K.UMASHANKARA S/O BS KALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT BILLAHALLY VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI CHENNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE .N, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R9) - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010753902025 NC: 2026:KHC:45913 WP No. 34875 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES NO. 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 26-03-2021 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 IN NO-R.A/CR/25/2020-21 AS PER ANNEXURE-T AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 26.03.2021 (Annexure-T), the order dated 13.12.2019 (Annexure-R) and the order dated 16.11.2016 (Annexure-P), inter-alia, sought for a direction to the respondent - Authorities to enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records pertaining to the land in question. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that respondent No.4 had acquired the property as per the registered sale deed dated 18.11.2009 (Annexure-N). However, the said sale - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010753902025 NC: 2026:KHC:45913 WP No. 34875 of 2025 has been made in contravention of the provisions contained under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act, 1978') and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 9, referring to the findings recorded by respondent No.1 in the order dated 26.03.2021 at Annexure-T, contends that respondent No.1, after considering the entire materials on record, has arrived at the conclusion that no grant order was made in favour of the grandfather of the petitioners and therefore, contended that the nature of the land in question itself is in dispute and accordingly, the sale transaction was effected under the registered sale deed dated 18.11.2009 and hence, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010753902025 NC: 2026:KHC:45913 WP No. 34875 of 2025 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader has also sought to justify the orders passed by the respondent - authorities. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful consideration of the order dated 16.11.2016 (Annexure-P), it is noticed that respondent No.2, after verifying the original records, has arrived at the conclusion that the land, which is stated to have been granted in favour of the petitioners, under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, 1978 is disputed by respondent No.2. Based on the said findings, respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order dated 26.03.2021 (Annexure-T) stating that the sale transaction made in favour of the petitioners herein is based on the registered sale deed dated 18.11.2009 and that there are no records as to the grant made in favour of the petitioners under the provisions of the PTCL Act during 2010-11. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010753902025 NC: 2026:KHC:45913 WP No. 34875 of 2025 7. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the finding recorded by respondent No.1 is just and proper, as the same is based on the registered sale deed dated 18.11.2009 and the material available on record. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the respondent - Authorities. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioners to establish their right over the property in the manner known to law. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67