In a packed courtroom at the Karnataka High Court, Justice R. Devdas on September 26, 2025, dismissed a writ petition filed by 82-year-old Sri Doddagiriyappachari from Khaji Sonnenahalli village. The case revolved around a disputed land transaction originally granted to Scheduled Caste beneficiaries. The courtroom felt tense as the judge read out portions of the order, which dealt with allegations of repeated land transfers and misuse of powers of attorney under the Karnataka SC/ST Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands (PTCL) Act, 1978.
Read also: Punjab and Haryana High Court sternly warns lawyers against using mobile phones and AI
Background
The dispute dates back to a 1956 sale when the original grantee, Smt. Kenchamma, and her son sold 3 acres 26 guntas to one Smt. Basamma. That sale was annulled decades later under the PTCL Act and the land restored to the grantee’s heirs. After multiple transactions and government permissions, a registered sale deed was executed in 2006 in favour of Doddagiriyappachari by a power of attorney holder for Muninarayanappa, the grantee’s son.
However, Muninarayanappa’s legal heirs later challenged the 2006 sale, arguing that the sale was void because it violated conditions attached to the government’s sanction. They invoked Section 5 of the PTCL Act before the Assistant Commissioner, who annulled the sale and ordered the land’s restoration. The Deputy Commissioner upheld that order, prompting Doddagiriyappachari to approach the High Court.
Read also: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to 18-Year-Old Accused in POCSO Case, Citing Lack of Direct
Court’s Observations
Justice Devdas appeared critical of how the transaction unfolded. He noted that the State’s permission in 2005 was specific - only Muninarayanappa could sell the land to respondent B.M. Ramesh, not through a general power of attorney. “The transferee as well as the transferor have to be specific in the order of permission. If such permission is not granted, same would not be valid,” the judge remarked, echoing a 2021 Division Bench ruling.
The court also cited the A.K. Chikkaveerappa case to stress that powers of attorney are often used to bypass statutory safeguards. “Execution of a general Power of Attorney granting powers to dispose of the property or to approach the State Government seeking prior permission… is also not permissible,” Justice Devdas recalled from that precedent.
On the petitioner’s argument that the legal heirs had delayed filing their petition, the bench disagreed. It relied on a Supreme Court ruling which held that even an 8-year delay does not defeat the objective of a beneficial law meant to protect Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from exploitation.
Read also: Calcutta High Court Corrects September 26 Order in Hatisala Developers vs The Statesman Limited
Decision
Concluding his order, Justice Devdas held that both the petitioner and the third respondent had violated the conditions imposed by the government. He found no infirmity in the orders of the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners. “For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition lacks merit,” the judge declared, dismissing Doddagiriyappachari’s petition. Pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.
Case: Sri Doddagiriyappachari vs The Deputy Commissioner & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No.14207 of 2025 (SC-ST)
Date of Judgment: 26 September 2025