1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.207094 OF 2014(SC/ST)

Between:

Revanappa,

S/o Veerbhadrappa

Since deceased by LRs

1a.

Sulochana,

W/o late Revanappa

Aged about 62 years,

Occ: Household

1b.

Omprakash

S/o late Revanappa

Aged about 49 years,

Occ: Agriculture

1c.

Neelkant

S/o late Revanappa

Aged about 47 years,

Occ: Agriculture

All R/o Maskal, Tq: Aurad (B)

Dist: Bidar-584101

1d.

Umravati

D/o Late Revanappa

Aged about 43 years

Occ: Advocate

2

R/o Akkamahadevi Colony

Harugeri, Bidar

... Petitioners

(By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate)

And:

1.

The State of Karnataka

Represented by the Additional Secretary

Department of Revenue

Vidhana Soudha

Bangalore-560001

2.

The Deputy Commissioner

Bidar-584101

3.

The Assistant Commissioner

Bidar-584101

4.

Md. Yusuf,

S/o Shaikh Ahmed

Age: Major, Occ: Not known

R/o Santpur, Tq: Aurad

Dist: Bidar-584101 ... Respondents

(By Sri Shivakumar R Tengli, AGA for R1 to 3,

Sri Hanmanthraya Sindol, Advocate for R4)

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of

the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated

29.09.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar in

file

No.Kam/PTCL/Appeal/CR-08/2011-12,

the

certified

copy of which is at Annexure-J, confirming the order dated

22.02.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bidar, in

file No.Kam.Bhu.Su.CR-05/2006-07/7653, the certified copy

of which is at Annexure-B.

3

This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B'

Group this day, the Court made the following:-

ORDER

The petitioners in this writ petition calls in

question

the

order

passed

by

the

Assistant

Commissioner dated 22.2.2011 and the order of the

Deputy Commissioner dated 29.09.2014 exercising

jurisdiction under the provisions of the Karnataka

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of

Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1979 (hereinafter

referred to as the 'PTCL Act' for short).

2. Heard Sri.Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned

counsel for petitioner and Sri Shivakumar R Tengli,

learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent

Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Hanmanthraya Sindol, learned

counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition as

borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

4

The lands in Sy.Nos.92 and 45 which were inam

lands were re-granted to the vendor of the petitioners on

17.12.1985. On a complaint registered by the fourth

respondent before the Assistant Commissioner, the

Assistant Commissioner instituted proceedings invoking

the PTCL Act on the score that the land that was

granted would come within the definition of 'granted

land' under the PTCL Act and holds that the sale of the

lands to be in violation of the provisions of the Act and

sets the same aside.

4. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated

29.09.2014

affirms

the

order

of

the

Assistant

Commissioner setting at naught the sale that took

place. It is these orders of the Assistant Commissioner

and the Deputy Commissioner that are called in

question in this writ petition.

5. The facts are not in dispute. The lands were re-

granted to the vendor of the petitioners by the Land

5

Tribunal under the Karnataka Inams Abolition Act and

were inam lands, which admittedly would not come

within the definition of 'granted land' under the PTCL

Act for initiation of proceedings for resumption of land

in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Full

Bench of this Court in the case of MOHAMMED JAFFAR

AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY

SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

reported

in

ILR

2002

KAR

4693

which

was

subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of

this Court in the case of SRI JAGADISH vs. THE

STATE