Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22418
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS, J
SRI. HOSURAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, SRI. GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 21682 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. B.S. NAGARAJ
For the Respondents: SRI. SESHU V, HCGP
Writ of mandamus granted for land assessment under mandatory compliance with procedural laws.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 - Section 4(2) - Writ of mandamus sought directing Deputy Commissioner and others to consider petitioners' application for land phodi and durast - Petitioners' father was granted land; sought permission to sell after due process - Tahsildar recommended case for phodi and durast. (Paras 2-4)
(B) Procedural compliance - Online application for phodi and durast must be filed before further actions are taken by authorities. (Paras 4)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners inherited land granted to their father; part of the land was acquired previously, and they now seek permission to sell remaining land as they belong to scheduled caste.
Findings of Court:
Court held that authorities must proceed with the phodi and durast process in line with earlier recommendations, provided proper applications are made.
Issues: Whether the petitioners can seek permission to sell land without completing the phodi and durast process?
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the procedural requirements under the Land Revenue Act must be followed, and emphasized the necessity of submitting an online application for action to be taken.
Result: Writ petition disposed of, allowing petitioners to file an online application for phodi and durast.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court directed necessary action for land assessment. (Para 2) |
| 2. procedural compliance required for action. (Para 3) |
| 3. petitioners allowed to proceed with formalities. (Para 4) |
ORAL ORDER
Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for all the respondents.
2. The prayer in the petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner, respondent No.5-Tahsildar and respondent No. 6—Assistant Director of Land Records to consider the representation dated 22.07.2015 given by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is not disputed that 4 acres of land in Sy.No.37, Block No.22 of Thamadahally Village, Hunsur Taluk was granted in favour of Sri.Dasaiah, the father of the petitioners, on 15.02.1975. However, after the death of Sri.Dasaiah, the grant certificate was issued in the name of his widow Smt.Rachamma on 25.07.1980. In the year 1993, 2 acres and 24 guntas of land belonging to the petitioners were acquired in view of the establishment of the Harangi canal. Compensation in that regard has been given to the petitioners. However, in respect of the remaining 1 acre 16 guntas of land, the petitioners are seeking phodi and durast and thereafter, permission to sell the land, since the petitioners belonged to a scheduled caste community and in view of the express provisions contained in Section 4 (2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act'). Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-G, which is a communication dated 03.09.2018 made by the Tahsildar, Hunsur Taluk. Learned counsel submits that on verification of the original records, the Tahsildar, being satisfied that the claim of the petitioners is genuine, forwarded necessary information along with photocopies of the original records to the ADLR for further action in the matter of phodi and durast.
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader however submits that the petitioners cannot seek permission to sell without phodi and durast. Moreover, there is a prescribed format under which the petitioners are required to seek permission under Section 4 (2) of the Act, 1978.
4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned HCGP, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tahsildar and the Assistant Director of Land Records are required to proceed further to conduct phodi and durast in respect of the lands in question. As noticed at Annexure-G, the Tahsildar has already recommended the case of the petitioners for phodi and durast. Nevertheless, since an online application is required to be filed for phodi and durast and without which it may not be possible for the Tahsildar and the ADLR to proceed, the writ petition stands disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioners to file an online application forthwith and if such an application is filed, the Tahsildar and the Assistant Director of Land Records shall immediately act upon the application that would be filed by the petitioners and proceed to conduct phodi and durast, taking into consideration the recommendation made by the Tahsildar at Annexure-G dated 03.09.2018.
5. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date when which the online application may be filed by the petitioners. Needless to mention that the petitioners are at liberty to seek permission from the Government in terms of Section 4 (2) of the PTCL Act, 1978, and if such an application is filed, the Government shall consider the same and pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
