Petitioner challenged sale deeds of land granted under the Karnataka SC/ST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act after the 15-year restriction lapsed. The court held he had no locus standi as a stranger post-sale and dismissed the petition with Rs.10,000 costs for abuse of process.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6484 WP No. 102047 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT PETITION NO.102047/2024(SC ST)
BETWEEN:
VEERUPANNA S/O. PARAMESHWARAPPA NAYAK, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: PVT. WORK, R/O: GUNDAMMA CAMP, GANGAVATI, TQ: GANGAVATI, DIST: KOPPAL – 583 231.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA A. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: High Court of Karnataka
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY ISAK IRANNA S/O. GURUDAYYA, AGE: MAJOR, R/O: VEERUPAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: GANGAVATI, DIST: KOPPAL – 583 231.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K. ANAND KUMAR, ADV. FOR C/RESPONDENT NO.5) (BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4) (BY SRI SYED SARDAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING NO. KAM/PTCL/35/2016-17 DATED 15/11/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BEARING NO. KAM/APPEAL/71/2022-23, DATED 15/02/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-P, AS NULL AND VOID AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the order dated 15.11.2022 produced as per Annexure-N, passed by the 2nd respondent and the order dated 15.02.2024 passed by respondent No.1 produced as per Annexure-P.
under two different Sale Deeds dated 27.05.2000 and 23.01.2001. Later, respondent No.5 gave an application to respondent No.1 for conversion of the land into nonagricultural one. The Deputy Commissioner passed the conversion order on 29.09.2009, subject to condition that within two years from the date of order, the land is to be developed. Contravening the said condition, respondent No.5
had never taken up the development of the land. It is only on 18.02.2012 respondent No.5 filed a representation to the
Town Planning Authority, seeking permission to develop the land. The Town Planning Authority, Gangavati ignoring the condition imposed by the Deputy Commissioner while converting the land, ordered for development of the property and to form the layout. In the meantime, respondent No.5 sold the property in favour of respondent No.7 under the Sale Deed dated 18.11.2014. The petitioner has filed the application to the Assistant Commissioner to cancel the Sale Deeds dated 27.05.2000 and 23.01.2001, so also the conversion order. The same was not taken into consideration by the respondents and they have passed the order as per
Annexures- N and P. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
years. The said period of 15 years lapsed long back. Under
such circumstances, there is no contravention of the grant
order and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
form the layout and accordingly a layout is also formed. Further, it is also admitted that respondent No.5 sold the property in favour of respondent No.7 on 18.11.2020. In the meantime, the petitioner has filed the application before the Assistant Commissioner for cancellation of the Sale Deeds executed by him and the conversion of the land.
clear that the petitioner has approached this Court without any basis and without any merits. Under such circumstances; I am of the opinion that the petitioner has approached this Court to make wrongful gain by misusing due process of the Court. It is nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Petition is dismissed with cost of
Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the High Court Legal Services Committee within 60 days from today. Failing which, the Member Secretary of the High Court Legal Service Committee, Dharwad Bench, Dhawad is directed to report the same to this Court.
CKK/CT-ASC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
SD/JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner could challenge sale deeds and conversion orders after the 15-year alienation restriction in the PTCL grant had lapsed.
Whether the petitioner had locus standi to question revenue authorities' orders after voluntarily selling the granted land.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Veerupanna s/o. Parameshwarappa Nayak
The Deputy Commissioner, Koppal
The Assistant Commissioner, Koppal
The Tahsildar, Gangavati
The Revenue Inspector, Gangavati
Sayyed Ali s/o. Sayyed Rupsab
M.G. Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
