Writ Appeal No. 999 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18149-DB WA No. 999 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO.999 OF 2023 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NAGAPPA S/O LATE THOTADA BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
Legal Reasoning
2. SRI. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O LATE THOTADA BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 3. SRI. RAMAPPA S/O LATE THOTADA BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 4. SRI. SHIVANANJAPPA S/O LATE THOTADA BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE ALL AGRICULTURISTS RESIDENT OF HOSAKUNDAVADA DAVANAGERE TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN - 577 005 Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA HARAVI GOWDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: …APPELLANTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18149-DB WA No. 999 of 2023 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND COMMERCE M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE REVENUE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE-577 002. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION, DAVANAGERE-577 002 4. SRI. SRINIVASA S/O LATE THIPPERUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 5. SMT. DRAKSHAYANAMMA W/O VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 6. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE SHAMOONARAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 7. SRI. PARASHURAMA S/O LATE SHAMOONARAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 8. SRI. ASHOKAPPA S/O LATE SHAMOONARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT HOSAKUNDAVADA DAVANAGERE TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN – 577 002 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18149-DB WA No. 999 of 2023 9. SMT. RENUKAMMA W/O RAJAPPA CHIKKANNANAVAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHINNAMULAGUNDA HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT PIN - 581 110 10. SRI BASAPPA S/O NARASAPURA DEVANNA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOSAKUNDAVADA DAVANAGERE TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN - 581 110 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1 – R3; R4, R6, R7, R8 AND R9 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO. 58812/2013 DATED 03.07.2023 CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18149-DB WA No. 999 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) The challenge in this intra-Court appeal is to an order dated 03.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.58812/2013 whereby, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition upholding the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner by stating as under:- the petition in entertaining "7. If these significant details are taken into consideration, this Court would find that the restoration petition is filed after a lapse of 52 years. In the instance case, diligence is woefully lacking. Therefore, the order of restoration passed by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner is not sustainable. The restoration application is liable to be dismissed on three counts. On examining the records, this Court would find that the grant certificate was issued under Form No.1. The nature of grant under Form No.1 is given a quietus by the Apex Court in the case of B.K.Muniraju vs. State of Karnataka1. The Apex Court has held that a grant certificate under Form No.1 is a title document, and therefore, provisions of PTCL Act are not applicable. Secondly, there is an inordinate delay of 52 years and therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment cited supra, the legal heirs of the original grantee were not entitled to seek restoration. The third ground on which the restoration petition is liable to be rejected is that there are a series of alienations. The property is liable to be rejected is that there are a series of alienations. The property has changed hands and on account of the passage of time, the subsequent purchasers, being bonafide purchasers, have acquired valid rights, and their rights have crystallized. Therefore, the order 1 (2008) 4 SCC 451 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18149-DB WA No. 999 of 2023 passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner does not warrant any interference. 8. In view of discussion made supra, I proceed to pass the following:-
Decision
ORDER (i) The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed;" 2. The facts as noted by the learned Single Judge are that the original grantee mortgaged the land in question in favour of one Halappa, Thippendrappa, Obanna and Erappa. The original grantee died in the year 1998. Out of the total extent of 8 acres 4 guntas, the original grantee sold 3 acres 2 guntas in favour of Halappa S/o Madivala Hanumappa in 1956 and the remaining extent of 4 acres 35 guntas was sold in favour of Bellary Tipperudrappa in 1957. The first purchaser, namely Halappa, in turn sold 1 acre 20 guntas in favour of Basappa s/o Devappa and the remaining 1 acre 27 guntas in favour of Veerappa s/o Gangappa. Bellary Thipperudrappa, who was the second purchaser, in turn sold 1 acre 15 guntas in favour of respondent No.5 namely, Drakshayanamma and 1 acre 16 guntas in favour of Veerappa s/o Gangappa. The petitioners before the learned Single Judge were the legal heirs of the original grantee, initiated action by filing an application - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18149-DB WA No. 999 of 2023 under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as ‘PTCL Act’, for short). The Assistant Commissioner, after notifying the parties has allowed the application and ordered restoration on the ground that alienation contravenes the provisions of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The said order has been reversed by the Deputy Commissioner. 3. The finding of the learned Single Judge is in paragraph No.5. Learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav vs. Hari Kishore Yadav2 and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another3 to hold in paragraph Nos.7 and 8 that the restoration has been sought after a period of 52 years. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants do not dispute that the restoration has been sought after a period of 52 years. We find that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A.No.210/2023