AMBAVVA vs VIKRAM
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11494
WP No. 204363 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030115992026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
ND
DATED THIS THE 22 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.BHAVANI
WRIT PETITION NO.204363 OF 2026 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
AMBAVVA
W/O MESHAPPA KAMBLE,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O BHUTNAL TQ. AND DIST.
VIJAYPURA – 586 103.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LIYAQAT FAREED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VIKRAM
S/O DEVICHAND JAIN,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O KIRANA BAJAR,
VIJAYAPURA-586208.
SIGN
2. LALACHAND
S/O HANJARIMALL JAIN,
AGE: 63 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O KABRAJI BAJAR,
VIJAYAPURA-586208.
3. JAIN ASSOCIATES AND PARTNERS,
AMRUT
S/O SHANTILAL PORWAL,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11494
WP No. 204363 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030115992026
R/O KABRAJI BAJAR,
VIJAYAPURA-586208.
4. JAIN ASSOCIATES AND PARTNERS,
GOUTAM
S/O DEVICHAND JAIN,
AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O KABRAJI BAJAR,
VIJAYAPURA-586208.
5. JAIN ASSOCIATES AND PARTNERS,
KAMAL KUMAR
S/O MITTALAL JAIN,
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O KABRAJI BAJAR,
VIJAYAPURA-586208.
6. JAIN ASSOCIATES AND PARTNERS,
ANANTKUMAR
S/O KAMALKUMAR JAIN,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O KABRAJI BAJAR,
VIJAYAPURA-586208.
7. JAIN ASSOCIATES AND PARTNERS,
SHANTILAL
S/O SOGULAL OSWAL,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O KABRAJI BAJAR,
VIJAYAPURA-586208.
8. SAVITRI
W/O CHIDANAND POL,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O GYANG BAVADI,
VIJAYPURA-586208.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11494
WP No. 204363 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030115992026
9. ADITYA
S/O CHIDANAND POL,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O GYANG BAVADI,
VIJAYPURA-586208.
10. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
VJIYAPURA-586101.
11. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D. P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO C/R7;
SMT. MAYA T. R., AGA FOR R10 & R11)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A)
ISSUE THE WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE
ORDER BEARING NO.LND/PTCL/CR-02/2026-27 DATED
23.09.2026, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.11 VIDE
ANNEXURE-L, B) IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED
ORDER BEARING NO.LND/PTCL/CR-02/2026-27 DATED
23.09.2026, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.11 VIDE
ANNEXURE-L IS PASSED WITHOUT CONSIDERING AND
WITHOUT TAKING NOTE OF ARGUMENTS/WRITTEN
ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. HENCE THE
SAME MAY BE REMANDED TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
FOR RECONSIDERATION. C) ISSUE ANY OTHER DIRECTIONS
TO THE RESPONDENTS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT
UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.BHAVANI
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11494
WP No. 204363 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030115992026
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for caveator/respondent Nos.1 to 7.
2. The present petition arises from the impugned
order dated 23.09.2026 passed by the Deputy
Commissioner/respondent No.11 in No.LND/PTCL/CR-
02/2026-27.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that the father of the petitioner was granted
the subject matter of the land under the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, 1961, and was in continuous possession of
the same and the subject matter of the land is covered
under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act,
1
1978 , and inspite of it, respondent No.11 has passed an
order stating that the subject matter of the land is not
granted land, as the father of the petitioner was conferred
occupancy right as a tenant under the provisions of the
1
for short ‘the PTCL Act’
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11494
WP No. 204363 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030115992026
Act and the said order is perverse and illegal on the
ground that the respondent No.11 - Deputy Commissioner
has failed to take note of the fact that in the earlier
proceedings, the then Deputy Commissioner has given
permission to alienate by invoking the provisions of PTCL
Act. It is further contended that respondent Nos.1 and 2
fraudulently taking the signature of the petitioner have
filed an application before the then Deputy Commissioner
for seeking permission to alienate the subject land and in
the said proceedings, the Deputy Commissioner has
passed an order as per Annexure-E, wherein three
conditions were stipulated namely;
(i) To follow the procedure as stipulated
under the Land Grant Rules,
(ii) To alienate the property in accordance
with the market value, and
(iii) Out of the sale consideration to purchase
the another land;
4. In fact, none of the aforesaid conditions were
fulfilled and as such, on that ground also the alleged
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11494
WP No. 204363 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030115992026
impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is further
contended that the sale deed has been obtained
fraudulently and the same was brought to the knowledge
of the son of the petitioner and thereafter the son of the
petitioner has made effort to trace out the documents
from the office of the Tahsildar and the Deputy
Commissioner and secured the documents at Annexure-E
series as attached to the writ petition. Except the said
documents, no other documents were made available to
the petitioner or to the son of the petitioner. Respondent
No.11-Deputy Commissioner without considering the
earlier orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated
05.05.2005 at Annexure-E3 and order dated 26.08.2005
at Annexure-E5 has passed the impugned order, which is
perverse, illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law and
sought for allowing the writ petition .
5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to
7/Caveators has contended that respondent No.11 has
considered all the legal proposition of the PTCL Act and
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11494
WP No. 204363 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030115992026
MOHAMMED JAFFAR AND
relying upon the decision of
ANR. vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
reported in
ILR 2002 KAR 4693 , has passed the impugned order.
The order of respondent No.11 is proper and does not call
for interference. It is further contended that the subject
land is not a granted land for the applicability of the Land
Grant Rules. It is evident from the document at
Annexure-B3 that the occupancy right has been conferred
in favour of the father of the petitioner in respect of the
subject land under the provisions of Karnataka Land
2
Reforms Act, 1974 and the same is not a granted land
and Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act is not applicable to the
subject matter of the land. Therefore, the order of
respondent No.11 is proper and sought for dismissing the
writ petition.
6. Considering the rival contentions raised by both
the parties and the material on record, the question that
arises for my consideration is, whether the subject land of
2
for short ‘the Act’
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11494
WP No. 204363 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030115992026
which the occupancy right has been conferred in favour of
the father of the petitioner as a tenant under the
provisions of the Act, can be construed as “granted land”
as defined under Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act, wherein the
land belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes
and thus is amenable for jurisdiction and operation of PTCL
Act?
7. The above question relating to conferment of
occupancy rights is dealt with co-ordinate bench of this
MOHAMMED JAFFAR
court in the decision of (supra),
which is relied upon by respondent Nos.1 to 7.
8. The relevant portion of the aforesaid decision is
extracted hereunder:
“12. A bare reading of Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act
makes it clear that the land should be granted by the
Government and such land is to be granted to a person
belonging to Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes
under the relevant law including agrarian reforms. Once
the land is held to be a granted land, the restriction
contained in Section 4 regarding the apprehension of
transfer of land would apply, meaning thereby such land
should be granted by the Government. Section 77 of the
KLR Act deals with disposal of surplus land and Section
77A, which has been inserted by Act No. 23 of 1998 with
effect from 1-11-1998, deals with grant of land in
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11494
WP No. 204363 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030115992026
certain cases wherein the tenant was cultivating the
land on 1-3-1974 has failed to apply for occupancy right
and the land has vested with the Government under
Section 44 of the Act.
13. Section 44 of the KLR Act, as stated above, deals
with vesting of the land in the Government. As per the
argument of the learned Government Advocate, the
entire land vests in the Government. It is clear from the
above said provisions of the Act that the Act is an
agrarian reforms Act and wherefore the grant made by
the Government under Sections 77 and 77A of the KLR
Act would come within the ambit of "granted land" as
the land is granted by the Government under the said
sections of the Act. Therefore, the land, which is not
granted by the State Government, cannot prima facie be
hit by the provisions of the PTCL Act. It is also clear that
all the lands held by or in possession of the tenants vest
with the State Government free from all encumbrances
and the State Government is entitled to take possession
of the said properties. However, as per Section 44(e)
the Government is not entitled to take possession of the
tenanted land and the permanent tenants, protected
tenants and other tenants holding the land are entitled
to such right or privileges and subject to such conditions
provided under Act. In view of Section 44 of the KLR
Act, it is clear that conferment of occupancy right by the
Land Tribunal, and not by the Government, is only a
declaration of pre-existing right which has been
conferred on the tenant under Section 45 and vesting of
the land is subject to right that is conferred on the
tenant for conferment of occupancy right. Section 45 of
the KLR Act gives a right to a person who is a tenant on
the land to get the occupancy right conferred in his
favour and Sections 48 and 48A deals with the
Constitution of the Tribunals and enquiry by the
Tribunal. The occupancy right will be conferred by the
Land Tribunal and not by the Government under Section
48A of the KLR Act on a tenant who was cultivating the
land personally on 1-3-1974. Therefore, what is
conferred on the tenant who was personally cultivating
the land on 1-3-1974 is the declaration of his occupancy
right of land on 1-3-1974, by the Tribunal. The
preamble to the KLR Act clearly shows that the Act is
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11494
WP No. 204363 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030115992026
enacted to confer ownership on the tenants and
wherefore, it is clear that the conferment of occupancy
right on the tenant who was personally cultivating the
land on 1-3-1974 is conferment of ownership on the
tenant as per the preamble to the Act and the same is
subject to certain restrictions which are imposed in the
certificate of registration issued under Section 55 of the
Act in Form 10. It is also seen that conferment of
occupancy right is only declaration of the fact that the
tenant who was personally cultivating the land on 1-3-
1974 and the land which has vested with the
Government, the tenant is declared as the occupant of
the said land subject to the restrictions contained in the
certificate of registration and if the tenant proves that
he has been personally cultivating the land on 1-3- 1974
he cannot be denied conferment of occupancy right.
14. Under the circumstances, it is clear that occupancy
right cannot at all fall within the ambit of 'granted land'
as defined under the PTCL Act. Considering the
argument of the learned Government Advocate with
regard to automatic vesting of land in the Government,
it is seen that the vesting of land in the Government is
subject to vested right of a tenant to get occupancy
right and for determination of right and conferment of
occupancy Land Tribunal, a Statutory Authority
established under the Land Reforms Act, is the
Competent Authority to determine the same on a tenant
who was personally cultivating the land on 1-3-1974. In
view of this, the occupancy right, which has been
granted by the Land Tribunal, cannot be construed as
"granted land" as defined under the PTCL Act. The
learned Single Judge in Narayan Parameshwar Naik's
case, supra and the Division Bench in Smt. Lalitha
Nagappa Naik's case, supra have not considered these
aspects and have wrongly come to the conclusion that
the KLR Act is an agrarian reforms Act by itself would
not give the tenant to get occupancy right and the
argument of the learned Government Advocate on the
reasoning of the said decisions, is not acceptable.
Certainly, the decisions in Narayan Parameshwar Naik's
case, supra and Smt. Lalitha Nagappa Naik's case,
supra, are not applicable and cannot be said to be a
correct law to decide the controversy in the facts of the
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11494
WP No. 204363 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030115992026
present case, and the said decisions are liable to be
reversed. On the other hand, the learned Single Judge in
Mohammed Jaffar's, supra, by an elaborate order, while
considering the provisions of Sections 77 and 77A of the
KLR Act and has rightly interpreted them with valid
reasons. Accordingly, we are satisfied with the reasons
of the learned Single Judge in Mohammed Jaffar's case,
supra, approve the same. On overall consideration and
as discussed above, we are of the view that the land in
respect of which the occupancy right has conferred
under Section 48A of the KLR Act would not fall within
the ambit of 'granted land' as defined under Section
3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act and answer the referred
question in negative.
The writ petitions shall be posted before the
appropriate Bench according to roster for disposal on
merits in accordance with law. “
9. Admittedly, in the present case as well the
father of the petitioner Sri.Ogeppa Mallappa Natikar was
conferred occupancy right vide order dated 29.12.1988 as
per Annexure-B3. In such circumstances, the contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject land
is a granted land and the PTCL Act is applicable, is
unsustainable in the eye of law.
10. Secondly, it is the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the then Deputy
Commissioner vide his order dated 26.08.2005 at
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11494
WP No. 204363 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030115992026
Annexure-E5 has granted permission for alienation under
Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act subject to the following
conditions:
1. .ಸ.ನಂ.45
ೕತ 26 ಎಕ 14 ಂ ಜೕನ
ವವ !ರ# $%& ಯನ( ಯ
ಅಹ+ರ,ೕ-.
2. ಅ.+/ರ ಸದ ಜೕನ ಇ23 ೕ4ನ 5 ಕ6
,78 59ಟ 5ಡ,ೕ-.
3. ಅ.+/ರ ಈ ಜೕ 59ಟ 5> ಬಂದ
ಹಣAಂದ ,ೕ ಕB ಜಂಇ ಖೕAಸತಕಕD ದ& E.
and the said conditions are not complied by the petitioner
and inspite of it, respondent No.11-Deputy Commissioner
in his impugned order has not referred to the said
proceedings of the earlier order. In this regard, it is apt to
refer to the relevant portion of the impugned order of
respondent No.11-Deputy Commissioner, wherein
respondent No.11 has referred to the earlier transactions
between the petitioner and respondent No.1 and also the
permissions obtained by the petitioner from the Deputy
Commissioner to alienate the subject land to respondent
No.1. These observations only indicate that the petitioner
has submitted an application for seeking permission to sell
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11494
WP No. 204363 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030115992026
the subject matter of land and obtained permission subject
to condition as stipulated vide Annexure E-5 of the writ
petition, but this will not in any manner convert or change
the nature of land to “granted land” as defined under
Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act from the “occupancy right”
as conferred under Section 48A of the Act. Therefore, the
Deputy Commissioner has rightly referred to the order of
the Land Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the
subject land is not a granted land and the PTCL Act is not
applicable. In such circumstance, the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.11-
Deputy Commissioner has not referred to the entire
factual aspect as contended above, is without any
substance.
11. Lastly, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to
7 has contended that the petitioner has been conferred
occupancy right in respect of the subject land under the
provisions of the Act and as such, the provisions of PTCL
Act is not applicable. In this regard, this Court has already
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11494
WP No. 204363 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030115992026
observed that the land in respect of which the occupancy
right was granted to the father of the petitioner under
Sections 77 and 77A of the Act. Section 44 of the Act
confirms occupancy right by the Land Tribunal and not by
the Government and the same is also evident from the
order of the Land Tribunal at Annexure-B3. Therefore, the
contention of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to
MOHAMMED
7 that the ratio laid down in the decision of
JAFFAR
(supra) is aptly applicably to the present case is
sustainable in the eye of law.
12. Thus, considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned order passed by the respondent
No.11 does not suffer from any infirmity.
dismissed
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is .
SD/-
(N.V.BHAVANI)
JUDGE
MSR/LG
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1