- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2049-DB WA No. 100271 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI WRIT APPEAL NO. 100271 OF 2025 (SCST) BETWEEN: SHRI SHANTRAM S/O SATEEPPA TALAWAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s SMT. RANAWWA W/O. LATE SHATRAM TALAWAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 9 SMT. DUNDAWWA D/O SHATRAM TALAWAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s 1. SHRI VASANT, M/O. DUNDAWWA TALAWAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GANESHWADI, POST DURADUNDI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 310. 2. SHRI. HANUMANTH, S/O. LATE SHATRAM TALAWAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GANESHWADI, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2049-DB WA No. 100271 of 2025 POST DURADUNDI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 310. 3. SHRI. KEMPANNA, S/O. LATE SHATRAM TALAWAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: GANESHWADI, POST DURADUNDI TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 310. 4. SMT. PARASAWWA, W/O. MALLAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: GANESHWADI, POST DURADUNDI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 310. SHRI. BASAVANTH, S/O. YAMANAPPA TALAWAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. 5. SHRI. ANAND S/O. BALAVANT TALAWAR, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: GANESHWADI, POST DURADUNDI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 310. 6. SHRI. SURESH, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2049-DB WA No. 100271 of 2025 S/O. BALAVANT TALAWAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: GANESHWADI, POST DURADUNDI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 310. … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR LAKSHMAPPA HAVARAGI, ADV.) AND: SHRI SATTEPPA RAJAPPA BELAVI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS., 1. SHRI. HANAMANT, S/O. SATTEPPA BELAVI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GANESHWADI, POST DURADUNDI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 310. 2. SHRI. GOPAL, S/O. SATTEPPA BELAVI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O GANESHWADI, POST DURADUNDI TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591310 3. SMT. MAYAWWA, W/O LAGAMAPPA MAGDUM AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2049-DB WA No. 100271 of 2025 R/O GANESHWADI, POST DURADUNDI TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591310 4. SMT. RAJESHREE, W/O. VITTAL KUDRUK AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O GANESHWADI, POST DURADUNDI TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591310. 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI – 590 001. 6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SUB-DIVISION, BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI – 591 102. 7. THE TAHASHILDAR, GOKAK, TALUKA GOKAK, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 218. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R5 TO R7) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22/03/2025 PASSED IN W.P. NO. 106144/2014 (SC-ST) AND ORDER ON I.A DATED 20/03/2023 AND BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC., - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2049-DB WA No. 100271 of 2025 THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.03.2025 passed in W.P. No.106144/2014. 2. The facts in brief, are that the land, which is the subject matter of the writ appeal, was granted to the mother of the appellants herein. The appellants belong to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe community. The appellants themselves sold the land on 11.02.1998 in favour of the contesting respondents. As late as in the year 2010, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner initiated suo motu action against the said purchasers under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PTCL Act’, for short). As per the orders passed by the revenue authorities, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2049-DB WA No. 100271 of 2025 the land was resumed and restored in favour of the appellants herein. Thereafter, the same was challenged by the contesting respondents herein in W.P. No.106144/2014, wherein the action of the revenue authorities has been set aside and it has been ordered that the land in question is restored back to the contesting respondents herein who are the purchasers. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed. 3. The case of the appellants is that, the land was sold by them in favour of the contesting respondents in violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act and hence, they are entitled for restoration of the same. 4. Per contra, Sri. H.M.Dharigond, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submits that there has been an inordinate delay in the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner initiating suo motu proceedings under the PTCL Act and the same cannot be sustained. He justifies the order passed by the learned Single Judge and prays for dismissal of the writ appeal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2049-DB WA No. 100271 of 2025 5. It is not in dispute that the land granted in the year 1982 has been alienated by the appellants herein on 11.02.1998 by way of a registered sale deed. Thereafter, belatedly, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner has initiated the proceedings of resumption of land under the PTCL Act in the year 2010. This, the learned Single Judge has held is in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and Another1 and also in Vivek M.Hinduja and Others Vs. Ashwatha and others2. We do not see any error in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. However, it is noticed that certain facts, as recorded by the learned Single Judge while delivering the judgment, are not as per the existing facts relating to the instant case. However, it is not in dispute that there has been an inordinate delay in initiating the resumption proceedings. For that reason, it has been held that the proceedings initiated against the contesting respondents are 1 (2020)14 SCC 232 2 (2020)14 SCC 228 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2049-DB WA No. 100271 of 2025 in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned cases. Hence, the appeal is hereby dismissed. 7. Further, there is a delay of 30 days in filing the appeal which is not satisfactorily explained and I.A. No.3/2025 stands rejected. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE Sd/- (B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE KMS / CT:ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21