Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Sri Manjunatha Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Sri Manjunatha Vs the Assistant CommissionerSri Manjunatha v. the Assistant Commissioner

Dismissed¶¶42

Sri Manjunatha v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2026WP/1499/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), single bench of Justice R Devdas, 06.02.2026; WP No. 1499 of 2026 (SCST-). Petitioners Manjunatha, Rukkamma, Chethana, Madhu, Dharani and Rajanna (Inam Gollahalli Village, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District) vs Assistant Commissioner, Madhugiri (R1) and private respondents Mahadevaiah and Obaraju. Challenge to notice dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure-A) in PTCL/SR/No. 52/2024 issued after admission of an application under the Karnataka SC/ST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. Held: non-maintainability contention cannot be urged in a writ petition; petitioners to file statement of objections before the Assistant Commissioner, who must hear both sides and decide per law. Disposition: dismissed; HCGP permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks. Statutes: Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India; PTCL Act, 1978. No precedents cited. Counsel: M.R. Nagabhushana for petitioners; V. Seshu, HCGP for R1.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed. The learned High Court Government Pleader was permitted to file a memo of appearance within four weeks from the date of the order (¶43-¶44). ¶¶42

Why is it important?

A contention that the application under the Karnataka Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 is not maintainable cannot be raised by filing a writ petition. ¶¶37

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed. The learned High Court Government Pleader was permitted to file a memo of appearance within four weeks from the date of the order (¶43-¶44).

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of notice dated 20.12.2024 at Annexure-A issued by respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner in PTCL/SR/No. 52/2024 should be quashed by this writ petition. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioners will have to answer the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner by filing a statement of objections along with all requisite documents.

Ratio / Principle

A contention that the application under the Karnataka Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 is not maintainable cannot be raised by filing a writ petition.

Key takeaways

The Assistant Commissioner is required to afford an opportunity of hearing to both sides and thereafter proceed to pass orders in accordance with law.ratio¶¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 - Assistant Commissioner admits third-party application and issues notice dated 20.12.2024 to landholders in PTCL/SR/No. 52/2024 - Petitioners' contention that the application is not maintainable cannot be raised by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Petitioners to answer the notice by filing a statement of objections with all requisite documents before the Assistant Commissioner, who shall afford an opportunity of hearing to both sides and pass orders in accordance with law - Writ petition dismissed.

A

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:7327 WP No. 1499 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 1499 OF 2026 (SCST-)

BETWEEN:

SRI MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LATE. RAMANNA

SMT. RUKKAMMA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS W/O LATE. THIPPESWAMY

SRI.CHETHANA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O LATE. THIPPESWAMY

SRI. MADHU

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O LATE. THIPPESWAMY

SRI. DHARANI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O LATE. KARIYANNA

SRI. RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O LATE. KARIYANNA

ALL ARE RESIDING AT INAM GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE,

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:7327 WP No. 1499 of 2026

HC-KAR

KASABA HOBLI, HONNAGONDANAHALLI POST, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 102.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. M.R. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER NEAR POST OFFICE, MADHUGIRI TOWN, MADHUGIRI TALUK - 572 132.

SRI. MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O LATE. NAGANNA

SRI. OBARAJU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O LATE. DODDAMADAPPA

ALL ARE RESIDING AT MADALURU VILLAGE, MADALURU POST, KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK - 572 103.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.V.SESHU, HCGP FOR R1)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER OF NOTICE TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 20.12.2024 AT ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE R1 IN PTCL/SR/NO. 52/2024 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE HIM UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC.,

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:7327 WP No. 1499 of 2026

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

ORAL ORDER

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for respondent No.1. Notice to the other respondents is not necessary for the following reasons.

The petitioners are before this Court raising a challenge to the notice issued by respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner, who has admitted an application filed by the other respondents invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. Learned counsel submits that the application is not maintainable for various grounds.

In the considered opinion of this Court, such a contention cannot be raised by filing a writ petition. The petitioners will have to answer the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner by filing a statement of objections along with all requisite documents. The Assistant Commissioner

NC: 2026:KHC:7327 WP No. 1499 of 2026

4 -

HC-KAR

is required to afford an opportunity of hearing to both sides and thereafter proceed to pass orders in accordance with law.

Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.

Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to

file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the order of notice dated 20.12.2024 at Annexure-A issued by respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner in PTCL/SR/No. 52/2024 should be quashed by this writ petition.¶¶29
The court held
The petitioners will have to answer the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner by filing a statement of objections along with all requisite documents.ratio¶¶37
2.
Whether the petitioners' contention that the application filed under the Karnataka Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 is not maintainable can be raised by filing a writ petition.¶¶36
The court held
A contention that the application under the Karnataka Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 is not maintainable cannot be raised by filing a writ petition.ratio¶¶37

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticles 226 and 227¶¶29
Karnataka Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978Karnataka Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978¶¶36

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order of notice dated 20.12.2024 at Annexure-A issued by respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner in PTCL/SR/No. 52/2024, pending before him, sought to be quashed by the petitioners.¶¶29
Assistant Commissioner, Madhugiri Taluk (respondent No.1) · 20.12.2024
Prior proceeding
Respondents 2 and 3 filed an application invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, which the Assistant Commissioner admitted.¶¶36
Prior proceeding
The Assistant Commissioner issued the impugned notice dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure-A) to the petitioners in case PTCL/SR/No. 52/2024, which is pending before him.¶¶29
Prior proceeding
At the preliminary hearing, the learned High Court Government Pleader took notice for respondent No.1; notice to the other respondents was dispensed with.¶¶35

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Sri Manjunatha¶¶8
M.R. Nagabhushana
petitioner
Smt. Rukkamma¶¶9
M.R. Nagabhushana
petitioner
Sri Chethana¶¶10
M.R. Nagabhushana
petitioner
Sri Madhu¶¶11
M.R. Nagabhushana
petitioner
Sri Dharani¶¶14
M.R. Nagabhushana
petitioner
Sri Rajanna¶¶15
M.R. Nagabhushana
respondent
The Assistant Commissioner, Madhugiri¶¶28
V. Seshu
respondent
Sri Mahadevaiah¶¶24
respondent
Sri Obaraju¶¶25

Coram

AI extract

R DEVDASauthor¶¶33

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 6 Feb 2026 · February
Registered: 20 Jan 2026
Case no.: WP/1499/2026
CNR: KAHC010027842026
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: R Devdas
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: Writ Petition (SCST-)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from R Devdas

Smt. Muddagangamma Vs State of Karnataka
5 Feb 2026
Sri Renukappa Vs the State of Karnataka
5 Feb 2026
Sri S v Ashwathaiah Vs State of Karnataka
5 Feb 2026
Smt Sreya Anuj Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka
6 Feb 2026
Arunkumar M N Vs the Principal Secretary to
6 Feb 2026
Mr. Dr. Basavaraj P v Vs State of Karnataka
6 Feb 2026

Cite this judgement

Sri Manjunatha v. the Assistant Commissioner, WP/1499/2026 (KA), decided on 6 February 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Constitution of IndiaArticles 226 and 227
Karnataka Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978Karnataka Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Order of notice dated 20.12.2024 at Annexure-A issued by respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner in PTCL/SR/No. 52/2024, pending before him, sought to be quashed by the petitioners.Assistant Commissioner, Madhugiri Taluk (respondent No.1) · 20.12.2024
Respondents 2 and 3 filed an application invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, which the Assistant Commissioner admitted.
The Assistant Commissioner issued the impugned notice dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure-A) to the petitioners in case PTCL/SR/No. 52/2024, which is pending before him.

View full history

Bench / Coram

R DEVDAS

Parties & counsel