Disposed¶76

Gopinath S T v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2026WP/22217/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Karnataka PTCL Act 1978 Section 5; SC/ST granted land; prohibition of transfer of certain lands; resumption and restoration of granted land; delayed challenge; unreasonable and unexplained delay; laches; Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi (2020) 14 SCC 232; R Suresh Mohan W.P.Nos.3597/2018; Davanagere; Shivamogga; Articles 226 and 227 certiorari; W.P. No.22217/2021; W.P. No.18961/2021; Justice M.I. Arun; order dated 09.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition No.22217/2021 dismissed; Writ Petition No.18961/2021 disposed of; the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 18.12.2017 (Annexure-A) and the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 03.09.2021 (Annexure-C) set aside; the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act dismissed. ¶76

Gopinath S T Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:34776 WP No. 22217 of 2021 C/W WP No. 18961 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 22217 OF 2021 (SC/ST)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 18961 OF 2021 (SC/ST)

¶9

IN WP No. 22217/2021

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

GOPINATH S.T. S/O LATE R.THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/O SURAHONNE BELAGUTTI HOBLI NYAMTHI TALUK - 577 223 (EARLIER HONNALI TALUK) DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. S.V.PRAKASH., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

…PETITIONER

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE - 577 001.

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34776 WP No. 22217 of 2021 C/W WP No. 18961 of 2021

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB DIVISION DAVANAGERE - 577 001.

¶21

RADHA W/O T.CHANDRU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O CHANNAMUMBAPURA - 577 201 SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶22

M.MANJAPPA S/O NAGABHOVI SINCE DECEASED BY.

¶23

DHANALAKSHMI W/O LATE N.MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O SURAHONNE, BELAGUTTI HOBLI NYAMTHI TALUK - 577 223 (EARLIER HONNALI TALUK) DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶24

KARTHIK S/O LATE N.MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O SURAHONNE, BELAGUTTI HOBLI NYAMTHI TALUK - 577 223 (EARLIER HONNALI TALUK) DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶25

NAVEEN S/O LATE N.MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O SURAHONNE BELAGUTTI HOBLI NYAMTHI TALUK - 577 223 (EARLIER HONNALI TALUK) DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:34776 WP No. 22217 of 2021 C/W WP No. 18961 of 2021

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

USHA

¶30

D/O LATE N.MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O CHANNAMUMBAPURA - 577 201 SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SMT. SHARADA H.V., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI P.B.HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R8)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2021 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN CASE NO.PTCL/CR-11/2018-19 AS PER ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶34

IN WP NO. 18961/2021

¶35

BETWEEN:

¶36

RADHA W/O T.CHANDRU AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O CHANNAMUMBAPURA VILLAGE - 577 243 SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT.

¶37

DHANALAKSHMI W/O LATE N.MAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

¶38

KARTHIK

¶39

S/O LATE N.MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

¶40

NAVEEN S/O LATE N.CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.

¶41

RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF SURAHONNE VILLAGE, BHOVI STREET

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:34776 WP No. 22217 of 2021 C/W WP No. 18961 of 2021

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

HONNALI TALUK - 577 217 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶46

USHA D/O LATE MANJAPPA W/O TILAK AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O CHANNAMUMBAPURA VILLAGE - 577 243 SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶47

...PETITIONERS

¶48

(BY SRI P.N.HARISH., ADVOCATE)

¶49

AND:

¶50

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILIDNG BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶51

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE - 577 001.

¶52

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANGERE SUBDIVISION DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.

¶53

GOPINATH S.T. S/O R.THIMMAPPA R/O SURAHAONNE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK - 577 217 DAVANGERE DISTRICT.

¶54

...RESPONDENTS

¶55

(BY SMT. SHARADA H.V., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶56

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34776 WP No. 22217 of 2021 C/W WP No. 18961 of 2021

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.09.2021 PASSED BY R-2 IN PTCL/CR-11/2018-19 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,

¶59

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶60

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶61

ORAL ORDER

¶62

The grant in favour of the forefather of the petitioner in W.P. No.22217/2021 was made in the year 1956 on the ground that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community. The grantee gifted the land in favour of a third person in the year 1968. Thereafter, the land was sold in favour of the petitioner in W.P. No.18961/2021 in the year 1985. Thereafter, the petitioner in W.P. No.22217/2021 who happened to be the legal heir of original grantee made an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('PTCL Act') for the first time before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner in the year 2013. The said application was allowed. The land was ordered to be resumed and restored in favour of the legal heir of the original grantee. Aggrieved by the same, the purchaser preferred an appeal

¶63

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:34776 WP No. 22217 of 2021 C/W WP No. 18961 of 2021

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner has ordered that the land be resumed for the State.

¶66

Aggrieved by the same, the legal heir of the original

¶67

grantee has preferred W.P. No.22217/2021 and the purchaser has preferred W.P. No.18961/2021.

¶68

Admittedly, the alienation of the land took place in the year 1968 in violation of the conditions of grant. However, the person in whose favour it was alienated and thereafter the subsequent purchaser have enjoyed the land since then unabated. For the first time, after lapse of 45 years from the date of first alienation, the legal heir of the original grantee has challenged the same which under the circumstances has to be considered as unreasonable and unexplained delay. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS . STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER¹ as well as by this

¶69

Court in the case of R Suresh Mohan vs. State of Karnataka in W.P.Nos.3597/2018, such a challenge is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following:

¶70

1 (2020) 14 SCC 232

¶71

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:34776 WP No. 22217 of 2021 C/W WP No. 18961 of 2021

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

ORDER

¶74

i) The writ petition No.22217/2021 stands dismissed.

¶75

ii) writ petition No.18961/2021 stands disposed of .

¶76

iii) The impugned order dated 18.12.2017 bearing no.¦.n.¹.J¯ï/¹.Dgï:05/13-14 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-A in W.P. No.18961/2021 and the order dated 03.09.2021 bearing no.¦.n.¹.J¯ï/¹.Dgï-11/2018-19 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-C in W.P. No.18961/2021 are hereby set-aside and the application filed under Section 5 of the PTCL Act is hereby dismiss ed.

¶77

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶78

CHS

¶79

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

Gopinath S T v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopinath S T v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Mahadeva Nayaka Vs the State of Karnataka

H Dakshinamurthy Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Chikkabandamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Chikkadyappa Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Smt. Lakshmi Devi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Rajamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner