Karnataka High Court
Shivappa Nayakmakkal vs The Deputy Commissioner Dharwad on 6 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15240
WP No. 104638 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 104638 OF 2016 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
SHIVAPPA NAYAKMAKKAL,
SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S.,
1. DYAMAVVA W/O SHIVAPPA NAYAKAMAKKAL,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. PRAKASH S/O SHIVAPPA NAYAKMAKKAL,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
BOTH ARE R/O. HONNAPUR,
TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD,
DHARWAD.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD,
DHARWAD.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH 3. MAHADEVI W/O MANIK DESAI,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: HONNAPUR, TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. S.R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING ORDER DATED 23.04.2016,
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN NO.PTCL/RA/CR-55/2014-15
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2014 PASSED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN NO.PTCL/CR/3/2005-06 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-H AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15240
WP No. 104638 of 2016
HC-KAR
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RESUME THE LAND IN BLOCK NO.115 OF
KUMBARGANAVI VILLAGE OF DHARWAD TALUK TO THE PETITIONERS
FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
1. This petition is filed assailing the orders dated
23.04.2016 and 30.12.2014, passed by Deputy
Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner under the
provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978
(for short 'PTCL Act of 1978').
2. In terms of the order dated 23.04.2016, the
Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the appeal and
confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner,
who in terms of the order dated 30.12.2014, has dismissed
the petitioners' application seeking resumption of land.
3. Further, the relevant facts are as under;
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15240
HC-KAR
4. The Assistant Commissioner based on the report
of the Tahsildar, initiated action under the provisions of the
PTCL Act, 1978 and in terms of the order dated 11.05.2006
marked at Annexure-D, has dismissed the application.
Then, this order was questioned before the Deputy
Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner in terms of order
dated 23.02.2008, has dismissed the appeal. Then writ
petition is filed assailing the said order.
5. This Court in terms of order dated 27.11.2013
has allowed the Writ Petition No.63006 of 2009 and
remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh
consideration. The Deputy Commissioner in terms of order
dated 20.05.2014 has remitted the matter to the Assistant
Commissioner for further consideration. The Assistant
Commissioner in terms of impugned order has rejected the
application and said order is confirmed by the Deputy
Commissioner.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15240
HC-KAR
6. In terms of both orders which are impugned in
the petition, the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy
Commissioner have concluded that the land was granted to
the grantee before the grantee was included under the
Scheduled Tribe.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would urge that issue whether the PTCL Act of 1978 is
applicable to the grantee who is later included in the
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is covered in terms of
the judgment of the Full Bench of Court in Jayanna v.
Deputy Commissioner and others in W.P.No.28263 of
20041. Thus, he would contend that even though the
grantee was not Scheduled Tribe when the land was
granted, since he was later included in the Scheduled Tribe,
the alienation made by grantee or his children is hit by PTCL
Act of 1978.
2013 KLJ 177 (FB)
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15240
HC-KAR
8. The alienation took place in the year 1982 and
petitioner's community was included as Scheduled Tribe in
the year 1981. Thus, the transaction is hit by PTCL Act of
1978.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the private
respondents would urge that since the transaction took
place in the year 1982, the petitioner's claim is hit by delay
and laches and it is his further contention that the issue in
this regard is squarely covered in terms of the judgment of
the Apex Court in the Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of
Karnataka2. In the said case, the Apex Court has held that
the action initiated 17 years after the sale transaction is hit
by delay and laches.
10. In the instant case, the transaction took place in
1982 and first suo motu action was initiated by the Deputy
Commissioner in the year 2005 i.e. 23 years after the sale
transaction. This fact is not in dispute.
(2020) 14 SCC 232
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15240
HC-KAR
11. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of
the view that the claim made by the present petitioners
pursuant to action initiated by Tahsildar is not tenable as
same is hit by delay and laches.
12. For the aforementioned reason, this Court does
not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly, petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
AM/CLK
CT:BCK
