Sri. Hosuraiah Vs the State of Karnataka

BOTH ARE SONS OF LATE DASAIAH, R/AT SIDDALINGAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK - 571 105 BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR REGISTERED GPA HOLDER SMT. JAYANTHI P.M. AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O DINA CHANDRA. T.S. R/AT NEAR KALLA BETTA B.M. ROAD, HANGODU HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30400 WP No. 21682 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

¶20

M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶21

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT,

¶23

MYSORE - 570 001.

¶24

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HUNSUR SUB-DIVISION, HUNSUR, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105.

¶25

THE THASILDAR HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 602.

¶26

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 602.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. SESHU V, HCGP)

¶29

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENTS NO.3, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RESPONDENTS NO.5, THE THASILDAR AND RESPONDENT NO.6 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:30400 WP No. 21682 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

TO CONSIDER HIS APPLICATION DATED, 22.07.2015 MADE TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2, THE COMMISSIONER, AND FURTHER DIRECTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1, DATED, 05.08.20015 ADDRESSED TO THE RESPONDENT NO.3, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR CARRY OUT THE SURVEY SKETCH, IN RESPECT OF HIS LAND BEARING SY. NO. 37/22, MEASURING 1 ACRES 16 GTS SITUATED AT THAMMADAHALLY VILLAGE HANGODU HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS COPY SUBMITTED AT ANNEXURE-D AND ANNEXURE- E.

¶34

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

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for all the respondents.

¶38

The prayer in the petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner, respondent No.5-Tahsildar and respondent No. 6—Assistant Director of Land Records to consider the representation dated 22.07.2015 given by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is not disputed that 4 acres of land in

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30400 WP No. 21682 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Sy.No.37, Block No.22 of Thamadahally Village, Hunsur Taluk

¶42

was granted in favour of Sri.Dasaiah, the father of the petitioners, on 15.02.1975. However, after the death of Sri.Dasaiah, the grant certificate was issued in the name of his widow Smt.Rachamma on 25.07.1980. In the year 1993, 2 acres and 24 guntas of land belonging to the petitioners were acquired in view of the establishment of the Harangi canal. Compensation in that regard has been given to the petitioners. However, in respect of the remaining 1 acre 16 guntas of land,

¶43

the petitioners are seeking phodi and durast and thereafter, permission to sell the land, since the petitioners belonged to a scheduled caste community and in view of the express provisions contained in Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act'). Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-G, which is a communication dated 03.09.2018 made by the Tahsildar, Hunsur Taluk. Learned counsel submits that on verification of the original records, the Tahsildar, being satisfied

¶44

that the claim of the petitioners is genuine, forwarded necessary information along with photocopies of the original

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:30400 WP No. 21682 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

records to the ADLR for further action in the matter of phodi and durast.

¶49

Learned High Court Government Pleader however submits that the petitioners cannot seek permission to sell without phodi and durast. Moreover, there is a prescribed format under which the petitioners are required to seek permission under Section 4(2) of the Act, 1978.

¶50

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned HCGP, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tahsildar and the Assistant Director of Land Records are required to proceed further to conduct phodi and durast in respect of the lands in question. As noticed at Annexure-G, the Tahsildar has already recommended the case of the petitioners for phodi and durast. Nevertheless, since an online application is required to be filed for phodi and durast and without which it may not be possible for the Tahsildar and the ADLR to proceed, the writ petition stands disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioners to file an online application forthwith and if such an application is filed, the Tahsildar and the Assistant Director of Land Records shall

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:30400 WP No. 21682 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

immediately act upon the application that would be filed by the petitioners and proceed to conduct phodi and durast, taking into consideration the recommendation made by the Tahsildar at Annexure-G dated 03.09.2018.

¶54

The entire exercise shall be completed as

¶55

expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date when which the online application may be filed by the petitioners. Needless to mention that the petitioners are at liberty to seek permission from the Government in terms of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, 1978, and if such an application is filed, the Government shall consider the same and pass necessary orders as expeditiously

¶56

as possible.

¶57

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶58

rv

¶59

CT: BHK

Sri. Hosuraiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Hosuraiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siraj Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

B Y Vishesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Zeenath Begum @ Zeenath Unnisa Vs Deputy Commissioner

A B Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ajay M C., Vs the Deputy Commissioner Office

Sri C M Byyanna Vs State of Karnataka