1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

WRIT PETITION NO.104832 OF 2021 (SC-ST)

BETWEEN

GANESH S/O. VENKATRAO KULKARNI

AGE. 85 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

R/O. KASHENATTI,

TQ AND DIST. DHARWAD-580006.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD-580001

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD-580001

HANAMANTAPPA S/O BASAPPA NAYAKMAKKAL

SINCE DECEASED NO LRS

3

THE TAHASILDAR,

DHARWAD,

DIST. DHARWAD-580001

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE

NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2021

IN NO.PTCL/7/2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 PRODUCED

AT ANNEXURE-G; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI

2

QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2013 IN PTCL/CR/22/2011-12

ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C;

ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE

ORDER DATED 28.02.2014 IN PTCL/CR/22/2011-12, ISSUED BY THE

RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND ISSUE A WRIT

IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING TO ENTER/RESTORE THE

NAME

OF

THE

PETITIONER

IN

R.S.NO./BLOCK

NO.83/P1

OF

HINDASGERI VILLAGE, TQ.DHARWAD MEASURING 10ACS-38GS IN

TERMS OF THE SALE DEED DATED 26.03.1979 AND M.E NO.1800.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner purchased the land in RS No./Block No.83

measuring 10 acres 38 guntas situated at Hindasgeri village,

Dharwad District from one Malappa Ramappa Uddannavar and

Laxman Ramappa Uddannavar through registered sale deed

dated 26.03.1979. Thereafter the name of the petitioner was

mutated as owner of the land in question in the revenue records.

2.

When things stood thus, the vendor of the petitioner

filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain

Lands) Act, 1978 (for short “the PTCL Act”) for resumption and

restoration of the land in question in his favour. The respondent

No.2/Assistant

Commissioner

by

order

dated

26.11.2013

3

declared that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner

is null and void and further directed the revenue authorities

concerned to mutate the name of the original grantee Sri.

Hanumanthappa Basappa Nayakmakkal. Being aggrieved the

petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.1. The

respondent

No.1

by

order

dated

08.11.2021

issued

an

endorsement confirming the order passed by the respondent

No.2 holding that the alienation made in favour of the petitioner

is in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act and dismissed the

appeal on the ground that there is inordinate delay of seven

years in filing the appeal. Taking exception to this, the petitioner

has filed this writ petition.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the land in question was purchased by the petitioner on

26.03.1979. However, his vendor filed an application under

Section 5 of the PTCL Act for resumption and restoration of the

land in the year 2011. Hence, he submits that the application

filed by the vendor of the petitioner after an inordinate delay of

30 years was not maintainable and as such, the impugned order

4

requires to be quashed. In support of his submission, he placed

a reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi -vs- State of Karnataka

and another reported in ILR 2018 Kar. 1352 and a decision of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cheddi Lal Yadav

and others -vs- Harikishore Yadav (d) thr. lrs and others

reported in (2018) 12 SCC 527.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent/state submitted that the transfer of th