- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010199162023 NC: 2026:KHC:53712 WP No. 8855 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 8855 OF 2023 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. B FATHIMA SULAIMAN D/O LATE H ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 2. SMT ASHA CHEYABBA SANOOR D/O LATE H ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O CHEYABBA SANOOR 3. SRI ADAM ISMAIL S/O LATE H ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 4. SRI. MOHAMMED SHERIFF S/O LATE H ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 5. SRI. ADAM ISMAIL S/O LATE H ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 6. SRI ABDUL HAMEED S/O LATE H ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 7. SRI MOHAMMED HUSSAIN S/O LATE H ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010199162023 NC: 2026:KHC:53712 WP No. 8855 of 2023 ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.9-184-1, FATHIMA COTTAGE, IRUVAIL ROAD, MARPADI VILLAGE , POST THODAR - 574227, MOODABIDRI TALUK , DAKSHINA KANNADA . …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALURU - 575001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANGALURU SUB DIVISION MANGALURU - 575001 3. SRI.M. SHEENA, S/O LATE MUDDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, MASTHIKATTE MOODABIDRI - 574227 D.K. DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. ATHARV S.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. UDAYA PRAKASH MULIYA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010199162023 NC: 2026:KHC:53712 WP No. 8855 of 2023 ORAL ORDER Sri.Chandranath Ariga K., counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Savithramma, Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri.Atharv S.Raju, counsel on behalf of Sri.Udaya Prakash Muliya, counsel for respondent No.3 appeared in person. 2. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 17.01.2023 vide Annexure-H is challenged in this writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of the writ petition. 3. Counsel for the respective parties advanced several contentions. Counsel for the petitioner in presenting the argument submits that the Assistant Commissioner was justified in concluding that there was no condition for non-alienation, hence, rejected the claim. However, on appeal the Deputy Commissioner has erroneously allowed the appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010199162023 NC: 2026:KHC:53712 WP No. 8855 of 2023 Additional Government Advocate and counsel for respondent No.3 justified the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Urging additional grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with utmost care. 5. Suffice it to note that the lands bearing Survey Nos. 222/1A and 222/1B, measuring 0.69 cents and 0.65 cents respectively, are situated at Pranthya Village in the present Moodabidri Taluk. The said lands were granted in favor of one Birku in 1935. Subsequently, the lands were alienated in 1975. The sale deed in 1975 has been produced along with the writ petition and is marked as Annexure-A. A perusal of the said sale deed makes it clear that there was no condition restricting or prohibiting alienation of the granted lands. Furthermore, the grant was made in the year 1935, whereas the alienation took place only in the year 1975, i.e., - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010199162023 NC: 2026:KHC:53712 WP No. 8855 of 2023 after a period of 40 years. In the absence of any condition prohibiting alienation and having regard to the substantial lapse of time between the grant and the subsequent sale, the finding that the alienation was in violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act and that the land was liable to be resumed in favor of the Government cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order directing resumption of the land to the Government is untenable in law. 6. For the reasons stated above, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 17.01.2023 vide Annexure-H is set aside. 7. Resultantly, the writ petition allowed. On disposal of the Writ Petition, any interim order stands discharged, and any pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45