- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:629 WP No. 103521 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 103521 OF 2022 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. SANDEEP S/O. ACHUT RAIKAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SIDDAPUR, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT -581 329. 2. SHRI. DUNDAPPA S/O. PARASAPPA KONKANI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SIDDAPUR, TALUK: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-581 329. 3. SHRI. ADIVEPPA S/O. PARASAPPA KONKANI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O SIDDAPUR, TALUK: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-581 329. 4. SHRI. IRAYYA S/O. MADIWALAYYA HIREMATH, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SIDDAPUR, TALUK: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-581 329. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE FOR P1; SRI. P. VADIRAJA, ADVOCATE FOR P2 TO P4) GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.31 10:34:24 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:629 WP No. 103521 of 2022 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT DISTRICT: BAGALKOT-587 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, JAMAKHANDI, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT-587 301. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, JAMAKHANDI TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DISTRICT: BAGAKOT - 587 301. 5. SMT. JAYASHRI @ LAKSHMI W/O. VITTAL MEGADI, AGE: MAJOR , OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOSKOTI, TQ: RAMDURGA, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 126. 6. SHRI. BASAPPA S/O. KAREPPA AKKIMARADI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O SIDDAPUR, TALUK: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-581 329. 7. SHRI. BASAPPA S/O. HANAMANTH KAGVAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SIDDAPUR, TALUK: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-581 329. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:629 WP No. 103521 of 2022 8. SHRI. GANI S/O. IMAMSAB AWATI, AGE: MAJOR , OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SIDDAPUR, TALUK: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-581 329. 9. SHRI. PRASHURAM S/O. SHIVAPPA SHIKREPPAGOL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SIDDAPUR, TALUK: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-581 329. 10. SHRI. REHMAN S/O. MEERASAB KANDAL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SIDDAPUR, TALUK: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-581 329. 11. SHRI. DATTA S/O. BHIMAPPA MANG @ HADIMANI @ METRI, AGE: MAJOR , OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O SIDDAPUR, TALUK: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-581 329. 12. SHRI. VISHAL S/O. BHIMAPPA MANG @ MANG @ HADIMANI @ METRI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SIDDAPUR, TALUK: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-581 329. 13. SHRI. BHIMAPPA S/O. RANAPPA MANG, [SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s THE RESPONDENT NOS.11, 12 AND 15 WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD] - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:629 WP No. 103521 of 2022 14. SMT. CHAMPAVVA S/O. PARASAPPA MANG, [SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’s THE RESPONDENT NOS.11, 12 AND 15 WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD] 15. SMT. VAISHALI W/O. MARUTI PARASANAVAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD/AGRICULTURE, R/O. PLOT NO.1, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, HUKKERI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591309. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. GANESH RAIBAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R11, R12 & R15; NOTICE TO R6 TO R9 & R10 ARE SERVED; R13, R14 ARE DECEASED, REP. BY HIS LRs., R11, R12 & R15 WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD) 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 TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01-03-2018 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER NO.PTCL/CR/01/2017-18 JAMKHANDI VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ORDER DATED 29-07-2022 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER NO. /PTCL-RP-02/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:629 WP No. 103521 of 2022 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the impugned order dated 01.03.2018 passed by respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner (Annexure-H) and the order dated 29.07.2022 passed by respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner (Annexure-J). 2. The brief facts of the case: 2.1. Respondent No.5 had filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (‘PTCL Act’, for short) before respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner, seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 11.08.2008 executed by respondent No.13 in favour of respondent No.6, and the subsequent sale deeds executed in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:629 WP No. 103521 of 2022 favour of the petitioner, respondent Nos.7 to 11 and original respondent Nos.15 to 17 (now petitioner Nos. 2 to 4), were null and void. 2.2. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the application, cancelled the sale deeds, and directed restoration of possession in favour of the original grantees. 2.3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred appeal before respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A of the PTCL Act. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. 2.4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the parties have amicably settled the dispute. A joint memo of compromise has been filed, duly signed by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:629 WP No. 103521 of 2022 petitioners, respondent Nos.5, 11 and 12, and the impleading applicant now arrayed as respondent No.15. 4. The joint memo is taken on record, which reads as under: “JOINT MEMO FOR REPORTING COMPROMISE The petitioners and Respondent No.5, 11 and 12 and impleading applicant Smt. Vaishali humbly submits that the present Memo is being filed in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the respondents outside the Court, with the intervention of the elders. In view of the said compromise, Respondent No. 5, 11 and 12 and impleading applicant Smt. Vaishali have no objection for allowing the above-mentioned writ petition and to quash the orders of the deputy commissioner on revision petition dated 29/07/2022 bearing No PTCL-RP-02/2018 (Annexure-J) and also the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 01/03/2018 bearing PTCL/CR/01/ 2017-18 (Annexure-H). Hence, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the writ petition - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:629 WP No. 103521 of 2022 in terms of the joint Memo, in the interest of justice and equity.” Emphasis supplied 5. A separate memo dated 20.01.2026 has been filed clarifying that respondent Nos.6 to 10 are the first purchasers from whom deceased respondent No.13 Bhimappa Ranappa Mang, had purchased the scheduled property and the petitioners and other respondents have no claim against them and hence they are not parties to the compromise. The said memo is taken on record. 6. It is stated that respondent Nos.5, 11, 12 and 15 have no objection to allow the writ petition and to quash the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, in view of the joint memo and the compromise arrived at between the parties. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:629 WP No. 103521 of 2022 7. All parties to the compromise are present before the Court and have been duly identified by their respective counsel. 8. The Court is satisfied that the compromise has been voluntarily entered. It is also relevant to note that the application under the PTCL Act was filed in the year 2017, whereas the initial alienation in favour of respondent No.6 took place in the year 2008, i.e., after the completion of alienation period. In the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the impugned orders canceling the sale transactions and directing restoration of the land in question to respondent No.5, warrant interference. 9. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:629 WP No. 103521 of 2022 ii. The impugned order dated 01.03.2018 passed by respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner, Jamakhandi (Annexure-H) and the order dated 29.07.2022 passed by respondent No.2 – the Deputy Commissioner (Annexure-J) are hereby quashed. iii. The sale transactions in favour of the petitioners and respondent Nos.7 to 11 stand affirmed. iv. Consequently, respondent No.4 - Tahsildar is directed to carry out mutation entries in the revenue records in favour of the purchasers in accordance with law. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA gab CT-MCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 126