Karnataka High Court
Sri. K Majid Sab, S/O Khasim Sab And ... vs Deputy Commissioner on 24 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16114
WP No. 104196 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO.104196 OF 2024 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K. MAJID SAB S/O KHASIM SAB AND IMAMBI,
AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. RAMANAGARA VILLAGE,
ARASIKERE HOBLI, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583 131.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HOSAPET, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583 201.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
HARAPANAHALLI SUB DIVISION,
HARAPANAHALLI-583 131, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR.
3. THE TAHASILDAR, HARAPANAHALLI,
TQ. HARAPANAHALLI-583 131, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Digitally signed by
4. SR. P.V. NARASIMHA S/O P.V. VEERABHADRAPPA,
AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.11.26 11:35:27
+0530
R/O. ANAJI GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE,
ANAGODU HOBLI, TQ. DAVANAGERE-577 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 03.07.2024 IN NO.APPEAL/PTCL/01/2023-24 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J AND ALSO TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2024 IN NO.PTCL (H.HALLI)/CR/104-2022
(PTCL 11/2022) PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-F, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16114
WP No. 104196 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Additional Government Advocate appearing
for respondents No.1 to 3. Respondent No.4 -the
contesting private party, though served, is not
represented.
2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated
03.07.2024 passed by respondent No.1-Deputy
Commissioner, who confirmed order dated
12.03.2024 passed by respondent No.2-Assistant
Commissioner.
3. In terms of order dated 12.03.2024, respondent
No.2-Assistant Commissioner on an application filed
by respondent No.4 resumed the land and directed
re-grant in favour of respondent No.4, who is the
son of the seller, who sold the land under two
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16114
HC-KAR
registered sale deeds dated 10.12.2001 and
04.05.2002. The property sold is Sy.No.487/1 in
Chatinahalli village, Arasikere Hobli, Harappanahalli
Taluk.
4. Respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner had
dismissed appeal confirming order passed by
respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner.
5. Both authorities have held that the sale transaction
dated 10.12.2001 in respect of 1 Acre 79 cents and
sale transaction dated 04.05.2002 in respect of 2
Acre, 50 Cents in respect of the aforementioned
survey number in favour of the petitioner are hit by
the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of
Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'Act of 1978').
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the claim is hit by delay and latches and
squarely covered in terms of the judgment of the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16114
HC-KAR
Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama
Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and another1.
7. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents-State would defend impugned order on
the premise that transaction being void, the
limitation would not apply and both authorities are
justified in holding that the transaction violates the
aforementioned provisions of Act of 1978.
8. The Court has considered the contentions raised at
the Bar and perused the records.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti
(supra) has held that application for resumption of
land on the ground of violation of the provisions of
Act of 1978, has to be filed within a reasonable
period. In the said case, application was made 17
years after the sale.
(2020) 14 SCC 232
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16114
HC-KAR
10. In instant case, an application was filed 21 years
after the first sale and 20 years after the second
sale; and the application is filed by the grandson of
the original grantee.
11. This being the position, the Court is of the view that
the delay and latches on the part of the vendor or
the son of the vendor, would come in the way of
making an application for resumption of land.
12. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i. Writ petition is allowed.
ii. Impugned order dated 03.07.2024 passed by
respondent No.1 marked at Annexure-J and
impugned order dated 12.03.2024 passed by
respondent No.2 marked at Annexure-F are
quashed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16114
HC-KAR
iii. In case petitioner's names are not entered in the
property records, same shall be entered within 30
days from the date of the receipt of certified copy of
this order.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
AM/-
CT:BCK
