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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 441418

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
KASAVANAHALLI IMAM SAB S/O LATE KHASIM SAB SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS. – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER – Respondent
WP 104205/2024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

WRIT PETITION NO. 104205 OF 2024 (SCST)

BETWEEN:

KASAVANAHALLI IMAM SAB

S/O. LATE KHASIM SAB,

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS.

1. SMT. FATHIMABI

W/O. LATE KASAVANAHALLI IMAM SAB, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

R/O. RAMANAGARA VILLAGE,

ARASIKERE HOBLI, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,

VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583131.

2. TARA BI D/O LATE KASAVANAHALLI IMAM SAB,

AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

R/O VENKATESHWARA NAGARA,

CHALLAKERE TOWN-577522,

DIST: CHITRADURGA.

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR

LAXMAN

KATTIMANI

3. JABIULLA KHAN

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

S/O LATE KASAVANAHALLI IMAM SAB,

KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

Date: 2025.12.19 AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

16:10:03 +0530

R/O RAMANAGARA VILLAGE,

ARASIKERE HOBLI, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,

VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583131.

4. SIRAJ @ RIYAZ

S/O LATE KASAVANAHALLI IMAM SAB,

AGE: 30 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,

R/O RAMANAGARA VILLAGE,

ARASIKERE HOBLI, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,

VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583131.

5. BHANU BI D/O LATE KASAVANAHALLI IMAM SAB, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O KHANAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI-583135.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HOSPET, DISTRICT: VIJAYNAGAR-583201.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HARAPANAHALLI SUB DIVISION, HARAPANAHALLI-583131, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR.

3. THE TAHASILDAR, HARAPANAHALLI, TQ: HARAPANAHALLI-583131, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR.

4. SRI. RAMESH R. S/O. RAMANJANEYA, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. ANAJI GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE, ANAGODU HOBLI, TQ AND DIST: DAVANAGERE-577001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1-R3;

SRI. S.K. KAYAKMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

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 QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 03.07.2024 IN NO.APPEAL/PTCL/07/2023-24 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2024 IN NO.PTCL (H.HALLI)/CR/02-2022 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G.

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

ORAL ORDER

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

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondents.

2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated

06.02.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, who allowed the application filed by the contesting private respondents for resumption of the land on the premise that the sale transaction by the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No.2 to 5 violated the provisions of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of. Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (‘the Act of 1978’, for short). The Deputy Commissioner has also dismissed the petitioners’ appeal vide order dated 03.07.2024 and has held that the transaction is hit by the provisions of the Act of 1978.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that, the land in question was granted to the seller’s father on 15.10.1957, and the grantee’s children sold the property on 04.11.1999 to the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of the remaining petitioners. The mutation is duly certified and husband of petitioner No.1 has come in possession of the property, and after the demise of the husband of petitioner No.1, the petitioners are in possession of the property.

4. It is submitted that the children of the vendor raised a dispute in the year 2022 for the first time for resumption of the land on the premise that the transaction in question is hit by the provisions of the Act of 1978. It is the contention that the dispute raised 22 years after the transaction dated 04.11.1999 is hit by delay and laches, and the ratio in the case of Nekkanti Ram Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and Others would squarely apply to the facts of the case.

5. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents would oppose the petition, on the p

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top