Writ Petition No. 26468 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6576 WP No. 26468 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 26468 OF 2023 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI NARAYANASWAMY M., S/O LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 2. SRI RAMESH S/O LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 3. SRI KUMAR S/O LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
Legal Reasoning
4. SRI SHEKAR S/O LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. 5. SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 13, 2ND CROSS, BHOVIPALYA, S G PALYA, BENGALURU 560029. 6. SMT VENKATAMMA D/O LATE RAMA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 7. SRI MANJUNATHA S/O LATE RAMA, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6576 WP No. 26468 of 2023 AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. PETITIONER NOS.6 AND 7 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 28, 2ND CROSS, BHOVI COLONY, S G PALYA, BENGALURU 560029. 8. SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 9. SRI SRINIVAS S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 10. SRI SHEKARA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. PETITIONERS NO.8 TO 10 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 25, 2ND CROSS, BHOVIPALYA, NEAR ORACLE BUILDING, THAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU 560029. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJANNA C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BENGALURU 560009. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BANGALORE 560009. 3. SMT B R KANTHAMMA D/O B R RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6576 WP No. 26468 of 2023 RESIDING AT SHIVANAPURA VILLAGE AND POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 562162. 4. SRI SALLAPURI S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT SUBBARAYANAPALYA VILLAGE, THAVAREKERE HOBLI, RAMOHALLI POST, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU 560074. 5. SMT K B MAHADEVI D/O SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 2362, 4TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560040. 6. SRI H UMASHANKAR S/O SRI HULLURAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 8, 80 FEET ROAD, BASAVESHWARANAGARA EXTENSION, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560040. (BY SRI. T. P. VIVEKANAND, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3; SRI. YOGESH D NAIK, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. R.K. RAVICHANDAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. I.D SANTHOSHGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R6) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF RECORDS IN PTCL(A) NO.1/2022 C/W PTCL(A) NO.25/2022 AND TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6576 WP No. 26468 of 2023 ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioners are seeking to quash the order dated 23.06.2003 passed by respondent No.1 in PTCL(A) No.1/2022 connected with PTCL(A) No.25/2022. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. Respondent No.4 filed a petition before respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "Act" for short), contending that respondent No.4 belongs to Scheduled Caste/Bhovi community and land bearing Sy.No.16 measuring 2 acres 4 guntas including 2 gunta of karab land situated at Chikkalluru Rampura village, Thavarekere Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk was granted in favour of grandfather of respondent No.4 by name Marenahalli Muniya Bhovi and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6576 WP No. 26468 of 2023 accordingly the name of Marenahalli Muniya Bhovi was entered in the RTC records. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that subsequent to the death of original grantee, one Doddamunishamabhovi, Chinna Bhovi and Muniraju were managed to get transfer the katha of the petition property in their names, their names came to be entered in revenue records. It is submitted that they have executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.3 in the year 1993 in Sy.No.16 measuring to an extent of 1 acre 15 guntas out of 2 acre 4 guntas and also executed another sale deed in favour of respondent No.5 in respect of the land Sy.No.16 measuring 1 acre 1 gunta, respondent No.5 in turn sold the property to respondent No.6 in the year 1998 and that the sale transactions which were taken placed is without obtaining the prior permission under the provisions of the Act. 5. The said application came to be allowed by the order dated 23.09.2021 by the Assistant Commissioner, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6576 WP No. 26468 of 2023 challenging the said order, respondent No.3 preferred appeal in PTCL(A) No.1/2022 in respect of land sold in favour of respondent No.6 i.e., Sy.No.16 to an extent of 1 acre 15 gunta. Respondent No.6 also preferred another appeal in PTCL(A) No.25/2022 in respect of Sy.No.16 measuring 1 acre 1 gunta, which was sold in favour of respondent No.5 and who in turn sold to respondent No.6. In the appeal preferred by respondent No.3 in PTCL(A) No.1/2022, the petitioners herein filed an application to implead themselves as parties to the proceedings. Respondent Nos.3 and 6 filed objections to the application. The application was considered and the Deputy Commissioner permitted the petitioners to come on record as impleading respondent Nos.5 to 14 in PTCL(A) No.1/2022. The Deputy Commissioner after allowing the application, considered the matter on merits and on hearing, allowed the appeals preferred by respondent No.3 in PTCL(A) No.1/2022 and respondent No.6 in PTCL(A) No.25/2022. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6576 WP No. 26468 of 2023 6. Respondent No.4-the original applicant has not preferred any writ petition against the order passed by the
Decision
Deputy Commissioner. The writ petition is preferred by the impleading applicants, who were not party before the Assistant Commissioner whose rights have not been established but had only sought to implead themselves as respondents before the Deputy Commissioner as respondents in the appeal file. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have preferred PTCL(A) No.18/2024 and the same is pending consideration before the Assistant Commissioner, the writ petition is not maintainable on both counts, hence, this Court pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25