Sri K R Anand vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 8217 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2022

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

          WRIT PETITION NO.10954/2022 (SC\ST)

BETWEEN :

SRI. K. R. ANAND
SON OF K.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
NO.248, B, 7TH MAIN ROAD,
MARUTHI LAYOUT,
VASANTHAPURA,
BENGALURU - 560 061.
                                         ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SARAVANA S, ADVOCATE)
AND :

1.      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
        REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
        REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
        DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
        VIDHANASOUDHA,
        BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.      THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
        BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
        BENGALURU - 560 001.

3.      SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA
        SON OF LATE GOVINDAPPA,
        AGED MAJOR,
                           2



4.   SRI. SUBADRA
     WIFE OF LATE GOVINDAPPA
     AGED MAJOR,

5.   SRI. HARISH
     SON OF HANUMANTHARAYAPA
     AGED MAJOR,

     RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 5
     ALL R/AT SHIVANAPURA COLONY,
     KEMPAMA DEVI NAGAR,
     SHIVANAPURA VILLAGE,
     DASANAPURA HOBLI,
     BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

6.   SRI. N.S. GANGADHAR
     SON OF SHIVARRUDRAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
     DEVERI NILAYA,
     OPP. GOPIVENKATESHWARA
     KALYANA MANTAPA,
     WEAVERS COLONY,
     B.H. ROAD, NELAMANGALA,
     BENGALURU - 560 061.

7.   SMT. M.B. BINDRA
     WIFE OF M.B. BOPAIAH,
     NO.16, 6TH CROSS, 9TH MAN,
     K.N. EXTENSION,
     YESHWANTHPUR,
     BENGALURU - 560 022.
                                    ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.G.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE WRIT AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY
THE    R2   IN   PROCEEDINGS      NO.KSC,ST/1/2016-17
28.04.2016   AS   PER   ANNEXURE-E      OR   IN  THE
                             3



ALTERNATIVE; QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
R2 IN PROCEEDINGS VIDE NO. KSC.ST/1/2016-17 DATED
28.04.2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-E.

    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE            THE
FOLLOWING:-
                        ORDER

The petitioner, purchaser of the subject land, has

impugned the initiation of the proceedings by the third

to fifth respondents in No.K.SC.ST/1/2016-17 under

the provisions of Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prohibition of Transfer of

Certain Lands] Act, 1978 [for short, 'PTCL Act'].

2. The petitioner contends that the Assistant

Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division,

Bengaluru, would have no jurisdiction to entertain an

application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act because of

the indisputable fact that the subject land is diverted

from agricultural to non-agricultural residential

purposes way back in the year 2000 and this diversion

is at the instance of the original Grantee. The petitioner

is bolstered by the decision of the Full Bench of this

Court in 'Munnaiah and Others v. The Deputy

Commissioner, Bangalore and Others'1. As such, this

Court must interfere and quash the proceedings.

3. Sri. Saravana S, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri. G.M. Chandrashekar, learned

Additional Government Advocate who accepts notice for

the first and second respondents are heard. It is

undisputed that the proceedings are pending before the

second respondent and though the law is crystallized

with the decision of the Full Bench in the aforesaid

Judgment, the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru

North Sub-division, Bengaluru will have to ascertain the

material facts for application of this decision.

1 ILR 2021 KAR 3169

4. Therefore, this Court is of the considered

view that the proceedings cannot be quashed at this

stage. But, given the narrow scope of the controversy

with the petitioner asserting that the subject land is

diverted from agricultural to non-residential purposes

and as provided in law and the decision of the Full

Bench of this Court in Muniyamma's case supra, the

petitioner must have the liberty to implore the Assistant

Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division,

Bengaluru to first consider this jurisdictional question

and if the petitioner makes such request, the Assistant

Commissioner must consider the same in accordance

with law in a time bound manner.

5. As such, the petition stands disposed of with

liberty as aforesaid to the petitioner with a direction to

the Assistant Commissioner if the request as aforesaid

is made by the petitioner, the question of jurisdiction

shall be decided within an outer limit of eight [8] weeks

from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

AN/-