IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 101385 OF 2024 (SC-ST)

BETWEEN:

NAGARAJ DANAPPA HOSUR S/O DANAPPA HOSUR, AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, VADDAL, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581 401.

… PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAXMESH P. MUTAGUPPE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTAR KANNADA, DIST. KARWAR-581 301.

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI DCKAHig TAit TNa I l MDyRA sAN igSI nHeEdK bAyR LAXMAN LKD+ oaa0 crt5ena 3: ta 0 i 2toa0 nk2 :a 5 H, .D1 ig 1hh .a2 Cr7wo 1 ua2 rdt : 5 Bo 4ef :n3c6h 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SIRSI SUB-DIVISION, SIRSI, DIST. KARWAR-581 401.

3. SRI. MANJUNATH NARAYAN HEGDE S/O NARAYAN HEGDE, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. SIRSI, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581 401.

4. BASAVARAJ BANGARAPPA NANDIKESHWAR S/O BANGARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. DASANAKOPPA, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA, PIN-581 358.

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;

SRI. S.H. MITTALKOD, ADVOCATE FOR R3;

NOTICE TO R4 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 WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER ANNEXURE-F DATED 27-03-2023 BEARING PTCL NO.5/2022 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 WITH RESPECT TO RESTORATION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE THAT THE LAND SHALL BE RESTORED TO THE ORIGINAL GRANTEE THAT PETITIONER AND THE LEGAL HEIRS OF ORIGINAL GRANTEE TO ENTER THEIR NAME IN REVENUE RECORDS.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, 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 dated 27.03.2023 in proceeding bearing PTCL No.5/2022 before the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar.

2. In terms of the said order, the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar has held that the sale transaction in favour of respondent No.3 is in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (‘PTCL Act’ for short).

3. The present petition is filed by the petitioner on the premise that once it is held that the transaction has violated the provisions of the PTCL Act, the property should have been restored to the legal representatives of the original grantee i.e. the present petitioner and the Deputy Commissioner could not have passed an order to restore the name of the Government in the property records.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents would urge that the grant was made in the year 1942 and first sale took place in

1991 and second sale was in the year 2000 in favour of father of 3^rd respondent and in 2018, the dispute is raised for the first time alleging violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act.

5. In addition to that, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would also urge the very same impugned order, which is impugned in the present petition is assailed by him in W.P.No.103944/2023 and the impugned order is set aside on the premise that the claim made by the legal representatives of the original grantee is belated and not tenable. It is urged that writ appeal filed by the present petitioner against the said order is also dismissed in W.A.No.100694/2023 in terms of order dated

27.08.2024.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the transaction being in violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act, the Deputy Commissioner is justified in holding that the property is to be confiscated. However, Deputy Commissioner could not have passed an order to restore the name of the State and should have passed an order to restore the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee.

7. In support of his contention, learned counsel would urge t