Shri. v L Somanathreddy S/O v. Venkatramanreddy Vs the Deputy Commissioner

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14309 WP No. 101117 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 101117 OF 2025 (SCST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI. V.L. SOMANATHREDDY S/O V. VENKATRAMANREDDY, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. NEAR BRAHMAIAH GUDI, KAPPAGAL ROAD, BALLARI, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI, PIN-583 102.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI, PIN-583 101.

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BALLARI, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI, PIN-583 101.

¶15

SHRI. HARIJAN MARIYAPPA M/O HARIJAN KENCHAMMA AND S/O HARIJAN KOLLARAPPA, AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MUSHTAGATTE VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI, PIN-583 116.

¶16

SHRI. HARIJAN SHANTAPPA M/O HARIJAN KENCHAMMA AND

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14309 WP No. 101117 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

S/O HARIJAN KOLLARAPPA, AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MUSHTAGATTE VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI, PIN-583 116.

¶21

SHRI SHANTANGOUDA S/O SANNA TIMMANAGOUDA, AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. GENEKEHAL VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI, PIN-583 116.

¶22

SMT. TAPPADI GANGAPPA S/O LATE TAPPADI IRAPPA, AGE ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. KURUGODU VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI, PIN-583 116.

¶23

SMT. MARIYAMMA D/O K. NAGENDRAPPA, AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. KURUGODU VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI, PIN-583 116.

¶24

SHRI V. NANDISH FATHER LATE TAPPADI IRAPPA, AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. GENEKEHAL VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI, PIN-583 116.

¶25

SMT. BADANAHATTI LAXMIDEVI W/O BADANAHATTI YARISWAMI,

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14309 WP No. 101117 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

AGE ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. KOLAGAL VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI, PIN-583 116.

¶30

SHRI BADANAHATTI DAYANAND S/O BADANAHATTI YARISWAMI, AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. KOLAGAL VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI, PIN-583 116.

¶31

THE TAHASILDAR, KURUGODU, TQ. KURUGODU, DIST. BALLARI, PIN-583 116.

¶32

… RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R11; SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4; NOTICE TO R6 AND R8 ARE DISPENSED WITH; NOTICE TO R5 IS DELIVERED; NOTICE TO R7, R9 AND R10 ARE SERVED)

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS I.E., THE ORDER DATED 21/02/2024 PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT IN NO.REV/PTCL/66/2023 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-E, AND THE ORDER DATED 06/12/2024 PASSED BY 2^ND RESPONDENT IN NO/REVENUE/PTCL/3/2024-25 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.11 TO RESTORE THE ENTRY OF NAME OF PETITIONER IN THE RECORD OF RIGHTS PERTAINING TO R.S. NO.328/B1 (OLD NO.328/B).

¶35

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

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14309 WP No. 101117 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

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

¶41

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶42

This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner assailing the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ballari, marked as Annexure-E, and the order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Ballari, marked as Annexure-H.

¶43

In terms of the said order dated 21.02.2024, the Deputy Commissioner has set aside the order dated 24.02.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978¹ .

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the property in question was granted to one Harijana Mushtagatte Kenchamma in the year 1957. In the year 1973, the original grantee sold the property to respondent No.5 under a

¶45

1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1978’

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14309 WP No. 101117 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

registered Sale Deed, which was executed prior to the commencement of Act of 1978. It is further submitted that, in the year 1996, respondent No.6 sold the property to respondent No.7; thereafter, respondent No.7 sold the property to respondent No.8; and in 2008, respondent No.8 sold the property to the petitioner under a registered Sale Deed.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, since the land was sold prior to the commencement of Act of 1978, the provisions of the said Act cannot be applied. Assuming that the provisions of the Act can be applied, there is an inordinate delay on the part of the respondents in raising a grievance in this regard.

¶50

In support of his contention, he would place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of Nekkanti Ram Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and Others² and Vivek M. Hinduja Vs. M. Ashatha³ .

¶51

Learned counsel appearing for the contesting

¶52

respondents would urge that the Assistant Commissioner has

¶53

2 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶54

3 (2019) 1 Kar LJ 819 SC

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14309 WP No. 101117 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

passed an order pursuant to the impugned order at Annexure-E by which the Deputy Commissioner remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner. Thus, the petitioner has to file an appeal against the order marked at Annexure-H passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

¶59

Since it is noticed that the claim has been raised 35 years after the sale, which has taken place in the year 1973, this Court is of the view that there would be no justification for the Court to direct the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

¶60

The Court has also taken note of the fact that the Assistant Commissioner has passed an order confiscating the land in favour of the State on the premise that the provisions of Act of 1978 have been violated.

¶61

Since the transaction has taken place in the year 1973 before the commencement of Act of 1978, and thereafter, few more transactions have taken place, the action initiated by the

¶62

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14309 WP No. 101117 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

respondent/State and the contesting private respondents is hit by delay and latches.

¶65

Hence the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

a) The writ petition is allowed.

¶68

b) The order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ballari, marked as Annexure-E and the order dated 06.12.2024

¶69

passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Ballari, marked as Annexure-H are set aside.

¶70

c) The respondent/Authority shall restore the name of the petitioner in the property records within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order.

¶71

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶72

PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 44

Shri. v. L Somanathreddy S/O v Venkatramanreddy v the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. v. L Somanathreddy S/O v Venkatramanreddy v the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balagavi Zilla Watandar Mahar Sangh Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Sharada Vs Smt. Saroja Devi

Shri. Jeeva Beera Gouda S/O Beera Gouda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sharanappa S/O Siddappa Koudi Vs Sharanagouda S/O Virupaxagouda Police Patil

Smt. Shantabai W/O Manohar @ Monappa Zende Vs the State of Karnataka

Janekunte Bheemalingappa Vs Smt. B. Shankramma