Karnataka High Court
K. Vasudeva Bhat vs State Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22459
WP No. 22205 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 22205 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. K. VASUDEVA BHAT
S/O MAHADEVA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
R/AT VISHWAS NAGAR, BAJE ROAD,
BOMMARABETTU VILLAGE,
UDUPI TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 113
2. RAJANI ACHARYA
W/O BHASKAR ACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT KALIKA NILAYA,
DONDERANGADY, BAIRAMPALLI VILLAGE,
UDUPI TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 124
3. B NITHYANANDA PAI,
Digitally signed S/O B NARAYANA PAI,
by SHWETHA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RAGHAVENDRA R/AT BAJE HOUSE, KUKKEHALLI VILLAGE,
Location: HIGH UDUPI TALUK,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 124
4. MANJUNATH KINI
S/O NARAHARI KINI
AGED AB.OUT 70 YEARS
R/AT RATHABIDI PERDURU VILLAGE,
UDUPI TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 124
5. UMESH SHETTY
S/O SUNDARA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22459
WP No. 22205 of 2023
HC-KAR
R/AT DURGAPARAMESHWARI NILAYA
BAJE ROAD, BOMMARABETTU VILLAGE,
UDUPI AND DISTRICT - 576 113
6. SMT SUSHEELA KAMATH,
W/O RAGUPATHI KAMATH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT RATHABEEDI, PHALIMARU VILLAGE,
UDUPI TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 112
7. RATHNAVARMA,
S/O KUMARAYYA HEGDE,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT ANGADI HOUSE, DAREGUDDE,
MANGALURU TALUK,
D.K .DISTRICT - 575001
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF REVENUE
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
UDUPI DISTRICT, RAJATHADRI,
MANIPAL UDUPI - 576 104.
3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
KUNDAPURA SUB DIVISION,
KUNDAPURA UDUPI DISTRICT - 5785 201
4. THE TAHSILDAR
UDUPI TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 101
5. SRI RAMESH KOTIAN
DISTRICT CORRESPONDENT,
KARNATAKA DALITHA SANGARHA SAMITHI ®
AGE MAJOR
R/AT VISHNUMURTHY NAGAR,
KELARKALABETTU VILLAGE,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:22459
WP No. 22205 of 2023
HC-KAR
UDUPI TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 105
6. SRI H DAYANANDA NAIKA,
S/O JAGANATHA NAIKA,
AGE MAJOR
R/AT FLAT NO. 301,
SAITHEJA SOLES,
16TH MAIN, 100 FEET ROAD,
BEHIND REBOOK SHOWROOM,
HVC, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 008.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. NAVEEN J.N., ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R6-SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 09.08.2021 IN CASE
NO.C.DIS.LND.SR.38/2018 PASSED BY THE R2 DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioners are assailing the order dated 09.08.2021 at Annexure-A passed by Respondent No.2 and sought for quashing the order dated 05.07.2018 passed by Respondent No.3 as per Annexure-B series and to quashing the order of Respondent No.4 dated 17.1.2017 at Annexure-C series.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:22459 WP No. 22205 of 2023 HC-KAR
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. It is the case of the Petitioners that, the Petitioners were the absolute owners in possession of the land, having purchased the same as per the Sale Deeds dated 12.01.2016, executed by Respondent No.6 (Annexure-D series). It is further stated that Respondent No.6 was serving in Defence and attained superannuation on 25.01.1971. Thereafter, Respondent No.6 made an application to the Respondent- authorities seeking grant of land reserved for ex-servicemen and pursuant to the same, Respondent-authorities had issued the Grant Certificate dated 01.08.1972 (Annexure-E) in favour of Respondent No.6. It is also further stated in the petition that, Respondent No.6 has made an application to the competent authority seeking 'No Objection' to sell the schedule property and the said application was rejected by Respondent No.4 by order dated 23.3.2010 on the ground that the land in question has been granted in favour of Respondent No.6 is prohibited under the provisions of Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'PTCL Act'). Thereafter, Respondent No.6 filed an appeal before Respondent No.3, -5- NC: 2025:KHC:22459 WP No. 22205 of 2023 HC-KAR which came to be dismissed. It is also stated that, Respondent No.6 was grantee of the land in question under Ex-servicemen quota and therefore, the land in question has not been granted under the Depressed Class Rules and therefore, this Court while disposing the petition in W.P.No.39653/2010 dated 06.03.2012 (Annexure-F), remanded the matter to the competent authority to consider the case of Respondent No.6 in accordance with law. Thereafter, on remand, Respondent No.2 has passed the order at Annexure-A dated 09.08.2021 which is impugned in this Writ Petition. Hence, the Petitioners have presented this Writ Petition.
4. Heard Sri.K.Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Sri.Manjunath K., learned HCGP for Respondents No.1 to 4 and Sri.Naveen J.N., learned counsel for Respondent No.5.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners while inviting the attention of the Court to the order dated 06.03.2012 in W.P.No.39653/2010 (Annexure-F) and contended that, this Court having taken note of factual aspects on record that the land in question has been granted in favour -6- NC: 2025:KHC:22459 WP No. 22205 of 2023 HC-KAR of Respondent No.6 in Ex-serviceman quota and not under the Depressed Class quota and therefore, remanded the matter to the competent authority for consideration. Hence, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that, the finding recorded by the Respondent-authorities to resume the land from the Petitioners herein, being the purchasers of the land in question, requires interference of this Court. In order to buttress his argument, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners has placed reliance of the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt.Kumari vs. Deputy Commissioner in W.P.No.26018/2022 disposed of on 10.01.2025 and submitted that, the grant made in any other enactment other than Depressed Class cannot be considered as granted land under the PTCL Act. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.
6. Per contra, learned AGA sought to justify the impugned orders.
7. Sri.Naveen J.N., learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5 submitted that, in the interest of public, Respondent No.5 has brought to the notice of the authorities -7- NC: 2025:KHC:22459 WP No. 22205 of 2023 HC-KAR with regard to the grant made in favour of Respondent No.6 and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition.
8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of writ papers would indicate that, the land in question has been granted in favour of Respondent No.6, as per the certificate of grant (saguvali chit) produced at Annexure-E. Perusal of the same would indicate that, the grant made by Respondent- authorities in favour of Respondent No.6 as the Respondent No.6 was an ex-serviceman and not under any Depressed Class grant. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the observations made by this Court on 06.03.2012 in W.P.No.39653/2010 (Annexure-F), this Court allowed the petition filed by Respondent No.6 and remanded the matter to the Respondent-authorities to consider the case of Respondent No.6 as an ex-serviceman. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that, the land in question has been granted in favour of Respondent No.6 under ex-serviceman quota and not under the Depressed Class quota. In that view of the matter, -8- NC: 2025:KHC:22459 WP No. 22205 of 2023 HC-KAR since the land in question has been granted in favour of Respondent No.6 as per the terms and conditions stipulated at Annexure-E and also taking into consideration of the declaration of law made by this Court in Smt.Kumari (supra) wherein this Court has held that, if the land in question is not granted under the Depressed Class quota, such grantee cannot be considered as a grantee under the provisions of PTCL Act. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by Respondent-authorities particularly at Annexure-A, Annexure-B series and change of katha made as per Annexure-C are hereby liable to be quashed and further it is to be noted that, the Petitioners herein has purchased the land in question, from Respondent No.6 as per the registered sale deeds produced at Annexure-D series. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is required to be allowed. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
ii) The order dated 09.08.2021 passed by Respondent No.2 (Annexure-A) in Case No.C.Dis.LND.SR.38/2018 is hereby quashed. Consequently, all further -9- NC: 2025:KHC:22459 WP No. 22205 of 2023 HC-KAR proceedings before Respondents No.3 and 4 as per Annexures-B and C series are hereby quashed.
iii) It is made clear that the revenue authorities are directed to change the revenue records into the name of Petitioners forthwith within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70