CHANDBI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11460
WP No. 203219 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030107692024




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA


KALABURAGI BENCH

TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

WRIT PETITION NO. 203219 OF 2024 (SCST-)

BETWEEN:

SMT. CHANDBI
W/O GAIBHUSAB GALAGGALI
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O HONAWAD, TQ: TIKOTA,
DIST: VIJAYAPUR.
…PETITIONER






(BY SRI AMEETKUMAR CHAGASHETTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-01

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
VIJAYAPUR, DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586101

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
VIJAYAPUR, DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586101

4. THE TAHASILDAR
VIJAYAPUR, DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586101

5.
SMT.YELLAWWA
W/O GOPAL HARIJAN
AGE: 60 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE



Digitally
signed by
SWETA
KULKARNI
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11460
WP No. 203219 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030107692024


R/O TORVI, TQ: TIKOTA
DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586101

6.
SMT.SHANTABAI
W/O MAHADEV MELINAKERI
AGE: 56, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O TORVI, TQ: TIKOTA
DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586101

7. SMT.LAKKAWWA @ LAKSHMI
W/O BHIMASHI MELINAKERI
AGE: 50, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O TORVI, TQ: TIKOTA
DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586101

8. MEGHA @ LAKSHMI
W/O NAGESH GORASANGI
AGE: 34, OCC: H.H.WORK
R/O BELGI, TQ: BELGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587101

9. PRASHANT
S/O BHIMASHI MELINAKERI
AGE: 29, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O TORVI, TQ: TIKOTA
DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586101

10. PAVAN
S/O BHIMASHI MELINAKERI
AGE: 27, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O TORVI, TQ: TIKOTA
DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586101

11. MADAN
S/O BHIMASHI MELINAKERI
AGE: 21, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O TORVI, TQ: TIKOTA
DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586101
…RESPONDENTS

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11460
WP No. 203219 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030107692024


(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
R5 TO R11 ARE SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A)
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 16.5.2024 PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
VIJAYAPUR IN NO. PTCL/CR-01/2022-23 VIDE ANNEXURE-H
AND ORDER DATED 21.10.2024 IN NO.LND/PTCL/06/2024
ND
PASSED BY THE 2 RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-J; B)
ISSUE ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION
AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE, INCLUDING AN ORDER OF
COST.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking following prayers:
“a) Issue a writ of certiorari and to quash the order
dated 16.5.2024 passed by the Asst. Commissioner
Vijayapur in No. PTCL/CR-01/2022-23 vide
Annexure-H and order dated 21.10.2024 in
nd
No.LND/PTCL/06/2024 passed by the 2 respondent
vide Annexure-J;

b) Issue any other suitable writ or order or direction
as this court deems fit under the facts and
circumstance of the case, including an order of cost.”


2. Sri Ameet Kumar Chagashetti, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that that deceased

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11460
WP No. 203219 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030107692024


Smt. Dhanawwa was granted land as she was a landless
person to the extent of 4 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.204/5
of Honwad Village of Vijayapur Taluk and District. The said
grantee executed an agreement of sale in favour of the
petitioner. However, she could not come forward to
execute the sale deed. Hence, petitioner filed a suit for
specific performance which came to be decreed and in the
execution proceedings, sale deed in favour of the
petitioner came to be executed on 21.06.2022 and later
the respondent Nos.5 to 11, who claim to be the legal
representatives of grantee, approached the Asst
Commissioner and sought to set aside the sale deed on
the ground that the land comes within the purview of
provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands)

Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PTCL Act’ for
short). The Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal,
which was assailed by the petitioner before the Deputy

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11460
WP No. 203219 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030107692024


Commissioner who dismissed the appeal which is
challenged before this Court.


3. It is submitted that land granted to the grantee
is not under the provisions of the PTCL Act. Hence, the
authorities have committed an error in setting aside the
sale deed. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.


4. Learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 supports the
impugned orders and submits that the finding in the
decree makes a reference that land is granted to
Dhanawwa as she belonged to the deprived community
and considering the same, the authorities have exercised
the power under the provisions of PTCL Act and set aside
the sale executed through the process of the Court which
does not call for any interference.


5. Respondent Nos.5 to 11 though served, there is
no representation.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11460
WP No. 203219 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030107692024



6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel
for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for the
respondent Nos.1 to 4. Meticulously perused the material
available on record.


7. The material on record indicate that Smt.
Dhanawwa Gopal Harijan was granted land by the Land
Tribunal, Vijayapura vide order dated 30.06.1988. It is to
be noticed that the grantee executed an agreement of sale
dated 28.05.2008 in favour of the petitioner to sell the
subject property granted to her. The grantee nor her legal
heirs could not come forward to execute the sale deed.
The petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.859 of 2011
before the Principal Civil Judge, Vijayapura. The said suit
came to be decreed on 31.08.2019. In the said suit, the
legal heirs of the grantee, though arrayed as parties,
remained absent. The Trial Court directed defendant
Nos.1(a) and (b) to execute registered sale deed in favour
of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11460
WP No. 203219 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030107692024


after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned
department under the PTCL Act. It is to be noticed that the
defendants in the suit i.e., private respondents herein
could not come forward to execute the sale deed despite
the decree. Hence, the petitioner initiated the execution
proceedings in Execution Case No.6 of 2021. In the said
proceedings, the petitioner got the sale deed executed
through the process of the Court vide registered sale deed
dated 21.06.2022. The respondent Nos.5 to 11, claiming
to be the legal heirs of the original grantee, challenged the
sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner through the
Court before the respondent No.3 by invoking the
provisions of Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The Respondent
No.3, vide order dated 16.05.2024 allowed the legal heirs
i.e., private respondents’ application and cancelled the
sale deed of the petitioner and ordered to resume the land
which was assailed by the petitioner before the respondent
No.2. The respondent No.2, vide order dated 21.10.2024,

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11460
WP No. 203219 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030107692024


dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner.
Being aggrieved, this writ petition is filed.


8. The excise of power by the respondent Nos.2
and 3 at the instance of respondent Nos.5 to 11, who
claim to be the legal heirs of the original grantee Smt.
Dhanawwa Gopal Harijan is without jurisdiction. It is to be
noticed that the grant order at Annexure-A dated
30.06.1988 makes it very clear that the said grant made
in favour of deceased Smt. Dhanawwa is under the
provisions of Section 77 of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘KLR Act’ for
short) as she was a landless agricultural labourer. The
order of Land Tribunal clearly indicate that the excess land
vested with the State Government, by exercising power
under Section 77 of the KLR Act, the land is granted to the
various persons including Smt. Dhanawwa Gopal Harijan.
Admittedly, the grant in favour of the original grantee is
not under the provisions of the PTCL Act. Hence, invoking

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11460
WP No. 203219 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030107692024


the provisions of the said Act before the respondent No.3
and consequential passing of the order by the respondent
No.3 as well as respondent No.2 are without jurisdiction
and same are liable to be set aside. Hence, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
allowed
(i) The Writ Petition is .

(ii) The impugned order dated 16.05.2024
passed by the Assistant Commissioner,
Vijayapura in PTCL/CR-01/2022-23 at
Annexure-H and order dated 21.10.2024
in No.LND/PTCL/06/2024 passed by
respondent No.2 at Annexure-J are set
aside.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE

SWK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58