SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 34675

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ABDULKHADARSAB – Appellant
Versus
HOOVAMMA – Respondent
WP 60478/2010



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.60478 OF 2010 (SCST)

BETWEEN:

SHRI ABDULKHADARSAB BIN FAROOQSAB KOTWAL, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MRUTUNJAYA NAGAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. HOOVAMMA W/O RAMACHANDRAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S., SINCE DIED ON 10.05.2013.

1a. SRI. SANTHOSH S.R. S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. #1192, 5TH CROSS, GANDHI NAGAR, DAVANAGERI-577 001.

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI

1b. SMT. ANJINAMMA W/O DANDIGAPPA, Location: AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA R/O. 3/1160, 5TH CROSS, DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD DAVANAGERI-577 001.

1c. SMT. MALA W/O H.D. MAILAPPA, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. 5TH CROSS, NEAR MATANGEMMA TEMPLE, DAVANAGERE-577 001.

1d. SMT. MAHALKSHMI D/O RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE-577 006.

1e. SMT. T. ARUNDHATI W/O RAMACHANDRAPPA M.H., AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. #196, 5TH CROSS, GANDHI NAGAR, NEAR MATANGAMMA TEMPLE, DAVANAGERE-577 001.

1f. SMT. SUMA S.R.

@ PALLAVI W/O PRADEEP KODVEDLU, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. UDAYAGIRI, KHB COLONY, DHARWAD-580 009.

2. SHRI ABDULMUNAF GOUSE S/O MODINSAB MALLUR, AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC: ELECTRICIAN, R/O. A.P.M.C. ROAD, OPP. TOWN POLICE STATION, RANNEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI.

4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI. 5. THE TAHASILDAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

6. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R3 TO R6;

SRI. G.N. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

SRI. PRAKASH BADIGER, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a TO f))

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 BEARING NO. PTCL/AP-1/2005-06 DATED 24/12/2009 AS PER ANNEXURE-M BY RESTORING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND L AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

This petition is filed assailing the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 24.12.2009. In terms of the said order, the Deputy Commissioner has set-aside the order dated 31.01.2000 and 07.02.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Haveri.

2. The property in question was granted to one Mayappa on 29.09.1956. It is not in dispute that Mayappa belonged to Scheduled Caste. Mayappa died leaving behind his sons and daughters. One of the daughters of Mayappa viz., Huvakka gave consent to enter the names of other legal representatives of Mayappa in the property records. Accordingly, M.E.No.17528 was certified on 27.09.1989 without recording the name of Huvakka in the property records.

3. On 21.02.1990, the other legal representatives of Mayappa whose names were entered in the property record sold the property to respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 in turn sold the property to the petitioner on 21.03.2000. Based on the sale deed, M.E. No.9558A is certified in the name of the petitioner.

4. It appears, the Tahsildar raised a dispute and matter was referred to the Assistant commissioner for adjudication. It is to be noticed that on 31.01.2000 the Assistant Commissioner has passed an order holding that the transaction dated 21.02.1990 did not violate any of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act, 1978).

5. Thereafter, on 21.03.2000 petitioner purchased the property from respondent no. 2 and by that time there was already an order by the Assistant Commissioner holding that the transaction is valid.

6. This being the position, the da

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top