- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:141 WP No. 104699 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 104699 OF 2016 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: SRI. UJANAPPA S/O. CHANDAPPA CHAVAN, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BYAHATTI, TQ: HUBBALLI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD, TQ AND DIST, DHARWAD. 3. SRI. SANGAPPA S/O. YELLAPPA BEVINKATTI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BYAHATTI, TQ: HUBBALLI. GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Date: 2026.01.22 15:27:09 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:141 WP No. 104699 of 2016 4. SRI. MAHADEVAPPA S/O. BASAVANNEPPA GUDI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BYAHATTI, TQ: HUBBALLI. 5. SRI. LAXMAN S/O. IRAPPA DODDAMANI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL WROKER, R/O: BYAHATTI, TQ: HUBBALLI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. G.S. SAVADATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4; NOTICE TO R5 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.05.2014 IN BEARING NO.PTCL/CR- 44/2013-14 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:141 WP No. 104699 of 2016 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the order dated 20.05.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad in PTCL/CR-44/2013-14, whereby the appellate authority set aside the order of resumption passed by the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ‘PTCL Act’). 2. Brief facts; The land bearing Sy. No.305 and 306 measuring 7 acres 11 guntas situated at Hebballi village of Dharwad Taluk originally stood in the name of Rudrappa Basappa Hranshikari who belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner claimed to be the legal heir of the said person. 3. The petitioner filed an application under the PTCL Act before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2012, contending that the lands were granted on new tenure and subsequent alienations in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 were in violation of the conditions of grant. The Assistant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:141 WP No. 104699 of 2016 Commissioner by order dated 10.12.2013 allowed the application and ordered resumption. 4. Aggrieved, respondent Nos.3 and 4 preferred an appeal under Section 5(A) of the PTCL Act. The Deputy Commissioner, by the impugned order allowed the appeal and held that the lands in question do not fall within the definition of “Granted land” under the PTCL Act and that the Act itself was inapplicable. The said order is called in question in this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the lands were granted in favour of a Scheduled Tribe grantee and therefore, constitute “Granted land” under the PTCL Act. The Mutation Entry No.1222 and the Kabulayat clearly indicate grant on new tenure. The Assistant Commissioner rightly exercised jurisdiction under PTCL Act while the Deputy Commissioner committed an error in holding that the lands are not governed by the PTCL Act and erred in setting aside the resumption order. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:141 WP No. 104699 of 2016 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the lands are Saranjam/ Inam lands, and conferment of rights in favour of the original holder was only by way of recognition of a pre-existing right and not a “Grant” as understood under the PTCL Act. Conferment of occupancy rights or continuation of a possession pursuant to the Inam abolition does not amount to a grant by a Government. The PTCL Act applies only to the lands granted by the Government under an enactment and not to the lands in which occupancy rights are recognised. The Deputy Commissioner has rightly applied the law laid down by this Court in the case of M. Munikenchappa Vs. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore and Others1 (M. Munikenchappa) and the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 7. Having heard the learned counsels, the point that arises for consideration is; 1 2004(3) KAR L.J.579 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:141 WP No. 104699 of 2016 “Whether the lands in question constitute “Granted land” within the meaning of Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act so as to attract the provisions of the Act?” 8. Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act describes “Granted land” which reads as under; 3(1)(b): "Granted Land" means any land granted by the Government to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes and includes land allotted or granted to such person under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to agrarian reforms or land ceilings or abolition of inams, other than that relating to hereditary offices or rights and the word "granted" shall be construed accordingly; 9. The scope and applicability of the PTCL Act had been the subject matter in the case of M. Munikenchappa, this Court has held that only a Government land granted to a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe under the provisions of an enactment can be treated as “Granted land” under the PTCL Act. The tenant Inam land, which stood vested in state upon abolition of Inams does not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:141 WP No. 104699 of 2016 become “Granted land” merely because occupancy rights are conferred on a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The conferment of occupancy rights or continuance of possession pursuant to Inam's abolition is recognition of a pre-existing right and does not amount to a grant within the meaning of the PTCL Act. 10. The Deputy Commissioner has recorded a clear finding that the lands in question are Saranjam/ Inam lands and the rights claimed by the petitioner traced back to their recognition under the Inarm's abolition framework. Such a finding is consistent with the law laid down in the case of M. Munikenchappa. 11. On a careful examination of the record, does not disclose any material to demonstrate that the land was granted by the Government under any enactment as distinct from their recognition of occupancy or continuance of possession. In the absence of such foundational facts, the essential requirement for invoking the PTCL Act itself is not satisfied. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:141 WP No. 104699 of 2016 12. The Assistant Commissioner, while ordering resumption proceeded on assumption that the lands constituted “Granted land” without examining the true nature of title and source of rights. The Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction has rightly allowed the appeal preferred by respondent Nos.3 and 4. 13. This Court finds no perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and the point framed for consideration is answered accordingly. Hence, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA PJ/ CT-VH LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 52