Writ Appeal No. 841 of 2018 · The High Court · 2025

Legal Reasoning

5. SHRI ANJANAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O HANUMANTHAIAH

6. SHRI YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O HANUMANTHAIAH

7. SMT. YASHODHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS D/O HANUMANTHAIAH MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24009-DB WA No. 841 of 2018 HC-KAR PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 7 ARE R/AT VISVESHWARAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU - 562 123 (BY SRI. M S JITHENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR A2 TO A7; SRI. S.SARAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR A1) …APPELLANTS AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT 5TH FLOOR, M S BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, VISWESWARAIAH TOWERS DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPUR, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203.

4. SRI. B.R.SIDDARAMU S/O R.RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT RAMA NILAYA, GOVINDAPPA LAYOUT SUBASH NAGAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24009-DB WA No. 841 of 2018 HC-KAR NELAMANGALA BENGALURU – 562 123. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24/04/2017 IN W.P.NO.51716/2016 (SC/ST) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE ORDER PASSED IN LND.SC/ST(A)27/2011-12 DATED 16/08/2016 OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL (RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN), AT ANNEXURE-A, AND FURTHER SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN PTCL.SR(NE): 4/2009-10 DATED 12/09/2011 OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (RESPONDENT NO.3 HEREIN), AT ANNEXURE- H AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/s AS MAY BE DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24009-DB WA No. 841 of 2018 HC-KAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The appellants–respondents before learned Single Judge are before this Court under Section–4 of the Karnataka High Court Act 1961, questioning correctness and legality of the order dated 24.04.2017 in W.P.No.51716/2016, where under the 4th respondent’s writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated

16.08.2016, passed by the Deputy Commissioner and restoring the order dated 12.09.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the application restoration of land in favour of the appellants herein.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.S.Saravana, for appellant no.1, Sri.H.S.Jithendra, learned counsel for appellant Nos.2 to 7, Smt.Saritha Kulkarni, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the entire writ appeal papers. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24009-DB WA No. 841 of 2018 HC-KAR

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the land in question i.e., measuring 1 acre, 33 guntas in Survey No.48/4 of Visweshwarapura village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru district was granted to one Hanumanthaiah under order dated

29.06.1981 by Land Tribunal, Nelamangala, registering him as an occupant of the land in question. The appellants herein along with the grantee Hanumanthaiah, sold the property in question in favour of respondent No.4 herein - petitioner before the learned Single Judge under sale deed dated 07.12.2000 in respect of 1 acre out of 1 acre, 33 guntas of land and by another sale deed dated

06.06.2003, he sold the remaining 33 guntas of land.

4. Thereafter, the appellants herein filed an application before the third respondent – Assistant Commissioner under Section–5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short ‘PTCL Act’) - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24009-DB WA No. 841 of 2018 HC-KAR for restoration of in question. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 12.09.2011, rejected the application of the appellants against which the appellants filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by order impugned allowed the application and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner, with a direction to take up the matter for fresh enquiry, with dew notice to both the parties and examine the matter.

5. Aggrieved by the order of remand, the fourth respondent was before this Court in Writ Petition No.51716/2016, where under the learned Single Judge under the impugned order dated 24.04.2017 following the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of MOHAMMED JAFFAR AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT

Decision

AND OTHERS1, allowed the writ petition and set-aside the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, remanding 1 ILR 2002 Kar 4693 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:24009-DB WA No. 841 of 2018 HC-KAR the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Singe Judge, the respondents are in appeal.

6. Learned Counsel, Sri.S.Saravana appellants would submit that the land granted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 would also fall within the meaning of ‘granted land’ as defined under Section 3(1)(b) under PTCL Act and would attract the provisions of PTCL Act. He would further submit that the order of the Deputy Commissioner would only remand of the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, wherein it would have enabled the parties to file relevant documents, as well as relevant circulars, on which the Assistant Commissioner has to arrive at a proper conclusion.

7. Learned Counsel, Sri.S.Saravana would further submit that the State Government has issued several Circulars to protect the interest of the oppressed class and the said Circulars cover the cases wherein lands granted under the provisions of Land Reforms Act. Thus would - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:24009-DB WA No. 841 of 2018 HC-KAR submit that the learned Single Judge committed error in allowing the writ petition and he prayed for allowing the writ appeal.

8. Per contra, learned AGA, Smt.Saritha Kulkarni, supports the order passed by the learned Single Judge and prays for dismissal of the writ appeal.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the entire writ appeal papers, the only point that would arise for consideration is: Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge requires any interference at the hands of this Court?

10. The answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons: Admittedly, the land to one Hanumanthaiah husband of the first appellant and father of the other appellants, was granted land under order dated 29.06.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal, Nelamangala under the provisions of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:24009-DB WA No. 841 of 2018 HC-KAR Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The said land was sold to the fourth respondent herein under two different sale deeds dated 07.12.2000 and 06.06.2003. Subsequently, the appellants filed an application under Section–5 of the PTCL Act, praying to restore the land which was sold in favour of the respondent No.4. Third respondent – Assistant Commissioner by an order dated 12.09.2011 rejected the application of the appellants on the ground that the provision of PTCL Act would have no application. Thereafter, the appellants filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal filed by the appellants before the Deputy Commissioner was allowed in part and the matter was remanded back the Assistant Commissioner, with a direction to take up the matter for fresh enquiry.

11. It is the case of the appellants that the learned Single Judge committed an error in setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner where under the order - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:24009-DB WA No. 841 of 2018 HC-KAR passed by the Assistant Commissioner was set-aside, wherein the Assistant Commissioner had specifically come to the conclusion that the provisions of PTCL Act has no application, qua the lands that are granted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

12. Learned Single Judge placing reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of MOHAMMED JAFFAR supra, has rightly come to the conclusion that occupancy right granted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961, would not fall within the ambit of 'granted land' as defined under PTCL Act.

13. Learned counsel the appellants has contended that there are Circulars protecting the rights of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Category and under such Circulars, the grants made by the Land Tribunal are to be considered as granted land under the provisions of PTCL Act. No such Circular is brought to our notice. Even if such circular exists, the same would be - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:24009-DB WA No. 841 of 2018 HC-KAR contrary to the decision of the Full Bench referred to above i.e., MOHAMMED JAFFAR (supra). Thus, we do not find any merit in the above writ appeal and accordingly, writ appeal stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24