Smt. S. B. Pramila v. The State of Karnataka

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:40450( WP(No.(37767(of(2025( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010815912025( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

RD DATED(THIS(THE(3 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026(

BEFORE(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(M.I.ARUN(

WRIT(PETITION(NO.(37767(OF(2025((SCST-)(

( BETWEEN:(( (

1., SMT.,S.B.,PRAMILA,

W/O,MAHENDRAN, AGED,ABOUT,62,YEARS, THR/AT,NO.1728,,6 ,B,MAIN,ROAD,

VIJAYANAGAR,EAST,

BENGALURU-560,104.,

…PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,RAGHAVENDRA,RAO,K.,,ADVOCATE),

AND:(

( Digitally

1., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA,signedtiby GEETHA0P0G DEPARTMENT,OF,REVENUE, Location: M.S.,BUILDING, HIGH DR.,AMBEDKAR,STREET, COURT0OF BENGALURU-560,001.,KARNATAKA REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,, PRINCIPAL,SECRETARY., ,

2., THE,DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER, MANDYA,DISTRICT, MANDYA-571,401., ,

3., THE,ASSISTANT,COMMISSIONER, MANDYA,SUB-DIVISION, ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:40450( WP(No.(37767(of(2025( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010815912025( ( ( MANDYA-571,401., ,

4., THE,TAHSILDAR, MADDUR,TALUK, MADDUR-571,42., ,

5., RAMALINGAIAH, S/O,DODDAHAIDAIAH, AGED,ABOUT,72,YEARS, ,

6., D.,GAYATHRI, W/O,RAMALINGAIAH, AGED,ABOUT,59,YEARS, ,

7., G.R,HARISH, S/O,RAMALINGAIAH, AGED,ABOUT,37,YEARS, ,

8., G.R.,RAJKISHORE, S/O,RAMALINGAIAH, AGED,ABOUT,33,YEARS, , RESPONDENT,NOs.5,TO,8,ARE, THRESIDENTS,OF,9 ,CROSS, CHURCH,ROAD,,S.V.,NAGAR, MADDUR,CITY-571,428., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SMT.,SAVITHRAMMA,,AGA,FOR,R1,TO,R4;, ,,,,,,SRI.,PRAMOD,R.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R5,TO,R8), , THIS,PETITION,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,&,227,OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA,, PRAYING, TO, QUASH, THE, IMPUGNED, ORDER, PASSED, BY, RESPONDENT, NO.3, IN, CASE, NO.PTCL,06/2025,DATED,28.11.2025,FOUND,AT,ANNEXURE-E, AND,ETC.,

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ORAL ORDER

¶1The petitioner is said to be the present owner of the land which is the subject matter of the writ petition. Respondent no.5, claiming to be the original grantee of the land has preferred an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act') before respondent no.3-Assistant Commissioner in 2025. The same has been allowed. Against the said order, petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 5A of the PTCL Act before respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order of status quo with respect to the property concerned. However, by that time the entries in the revenue records were changed in favour of the Government. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed with the following payers:

"a. to issue, a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order passed by Respondent No.3 in case No.PTCL 06/2025 dated 28.11.2025 found at Annexure - E. b. to declare that, refusal to grant the interim order of stay as sought for by the Petitioner before Respondent No.2 in PTCL Appeal No.53/2025 pending before Respondent No.2 is illegal, arbitrary and malafide. c. to grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstance of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶2This Court on 15.12.2025 had passed the following interim order: "Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents 1 to

¶4Issue emergent notice to respondents 5 to 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the purchaser and aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner directing restoration of land to the grantees and allowing application of the grantees. Petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act before the Deputy Commissioner. It is submitted that the order of the Assistant Commissioner was passed on 28.11.2025 and even without waiting for the period of limitation of 3 months, the revenue entries pursuant to the order of the

Assistant Commissioner standing in the name of the petitioner were deleted on 03.12.2025. It is submitted that in the appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have protected the petitioner by staying the order of the Assistant Commissioner as appeal was filed within time. There is substantial force in the contention of the petitioner. Accordingly, there would be stay of the order of the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-E and proceedings pursuant thereto. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, there has to be reversal of the revenue entries. Such prayer would be considered upon appearance of the private respondents. In the meanwhile, it is clarified that continuation of revenue entries in the name of the State ought not to prejudice the petitioner in any proceedings. List this matter after Winter Vacation, 2025."

¶3As the alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 5A of the PTCL Act has already been invoked by the petitioner, under the circumstances it would be appropriate to direct respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner to decide the case on hand in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

¶4Hence, the following:

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the appeal before him in respect to the property which is subject matter of the writ petition, as expeditiously as possible;

(ii) The interim order granted by this Court on

15.12.2025 shall continue till such disposal;

(iii) It is hereby made clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the case and respondent no.2 shall dispose of the appeal in accordance with law;

(iv) Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51