Karnataka High Court
Sri F Shanmukappa S/O Fakeerappa vs Government Of Karnataka on 23 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14204
WP No. 100472 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 100472 OF 2024 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
SRI. F. SHANMUKAPPA S/O. FAKEERAPPA,
AGE. 77 YEARS, OCC. AGRL.,
R/O. WAR NO. 4, SIDDIKERI,
NEAR GODESS GALEMMA TEMPLE, GANGAVATHI-583227
TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALURU - 560 001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KOPPAL -583231, DIST. KOPPAL.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KOPPAL SUB-DIVISION,
Digitally signed by DT. KOPPAL-583231.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH 4. THE TAHASILDAR,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA GANGAVATI -583227,
DHARWAD BENCH
TALUK, GANGAVATI.
DIST. BALLARI.
5. REVENUE INSPECTOR,
GANGAVATI -583 227,
TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL.
6. VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT,
GANGAVATI,
TQ. GANGAVATHI - 583 227,
DIST. KOPPAL.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14204
WP No. 100472 of 2024
HC-KAR
7. SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O. BASAPPA,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O WARD NO. 20, CHALAWADI STREET,
BHAVIKATTI BAYALU, GANGAVATI-583227
TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R6;
SRI. A.M.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL IN PTCL NO. 05/2013-14/4970,
DATED 06-10-2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ORDER VIDE
ANNEXURE-C CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOPPAL IN
NO. KAM/APPEALU/67/2022-23/3322 DATED 12-10-2023 AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned
counsel for respondent No.7 and learned Government Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 6.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the order
dated 06.10.2022 passed by the Assistant
Commissioner/respondent No.3 marked as Annexure-B and the
order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner
marked as Annexure-C.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14204
HC-KAR
3. In terms of the said orders, the Assistant Commissioner
has confiscated the petitioner's land on the premise that the
transaction between the petitioner and respondent No.7 violates
the provisions of the Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule
Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands), 19781. The
appeal filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner
was also dismissed vide order dated 12.10.2023.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
land in question was granted to the petitioner on 11.09.1981,
and the said land was exchanged with the land of respondent
No.7 on 29.07.1997. It is further submitted that in the year
2013, the Assistant Commissioner initiated suo-moto
proceedings to confiscate the land on the premise that the
transaction between the petitioner and respondent No.7 dated
29.07.1997 was a violation of the provisions of the Act of 1978.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit
that there was an inordinate delay and laches on the part of
respondent/State Authorities in initiating proceedings under the
provisions of Act of 1978 and, in support of his contention,
Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1978'
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14204
HC-KAR
placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases
of Nekkanti Ram Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and
Others2 and Vivek M. Hinduja Vs. M. Ashatha3.
6. Learned Government Advocate would support the
impugned orders on the premise that the action is initiated
within reasonable time.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.7 would justify the
transaction dated 29.07.1997 on the premise that no provision of
law is violated.
8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the
Bar and perused the records.
9. The issue raised in the present petition is squarely
covered in terms of the law laid down in Nekkanti (supra) and
Vivek M. Hinduja (supra). The transaction took place in the
year 1997. The Assistant Commissioner initiated the action 16
years after the said transaction. This Court is of the view that
there is an unreasonable delay and laches on the part of the
respondent/Authorities to question the transaction. It is also
(2020) 14 SCC 232
(2019) 1 Kar LJ 819 SC
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14204
HC-KAR
noticed that respondent/Authorities themselves have certified
the mutations based on the transaction of 1997.
10. Under these circumstances, the following:
ORDER
a) The writ petition is allowed.
b) The impugned order dated 06.10.2022 passed by the
Assistant Commissioner/respondent No.3 marked as
Annexure-B and the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by
the Deputy Commissioner marked as Annexure-C are
hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
PMP/CT-ASC
