[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Y.C Satish Kumar vs The Government Of Karnataka on 8 December, 2025
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:51747
WP No. 22785 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 22785 OF 2025 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
Y.C SATISH KUMAR
S/O.LATE CHANNARASAPPA
DIED DURING THE PENDENCY OF
PTCL SR (DE) 32/2020
THE PETITIONERS WERE REPRESENTED
IN L & D (SC/ST) APPEAL NO.54/2023
1. SMT.V. USHA SATISH KUMAR
W/O.LATE Y.C.SATISH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.29,
OM SHAKTHI NILAYA,
Digitally signed 3RD FLOOR, 6TH CROSS, C.T.BED,
by VIDYA G R
Location:
BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE,
HIGH COURT BENGALURU-560 070
OF
KARNATAKA
2. KUMARI. HARSHITHA.S
D/O.LATE Y.C.SATISH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.29,
OM SHAKTHI NILAYA,
3RD FLOOR, 6TH CROSS, C.T.BED,
BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 070
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:51747
WP No. 22785 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. KUMARI. PRAACHI.S
D/O.LATE Y.C.SATISH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.29,
OM SHAKTHI NILAYA,
3RD FLOOR, 6TH CROSS, C.T.BED,
BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 070
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. V B SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE TAHASILDHAR
DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION,
DODDABALLAPUR-561 203
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
DODDABALLAPUR-561 203
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BEERASANDRA GATE,
BENGALURU-562 110
5. SRI. VENKATESH
S/O.LATE POOJAPPA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:51747
WP No. 22785 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT GORIPALYA WARD NO.1,
DEVANAHALLI TOWN,
DEVANAHALLI TAUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI B.S. JEEVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) FOR A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER OF THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 4TH RESPONDENT IN NO.L AND D
(SC/ST) APPEAL NO.54/2023 DATED 22.07.2025 IS AT
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
ORAL ORDER
The present petition is by the legal representatives of
the purchaser who have called in question the correctness
of the order at Annexure-'A' dated 22.07.2025 passed by
the Deputy Commissioner.
2. The brief facts that may be of relevance for the
purpose of disposal of the Writ Petition are that, it is
NC: 2025:KHC:51747
HC-KAR
stated that the land was granted on 12.07.1948 in favour
of Munishami S/o Marappa to an extent of 3.00 acres
6.00 guntas at Prasannahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli,,
Devanahalli Taluk. It is asserted by the purchasers that
the land was granted under the Dharkasth Rules in force
under the 'Grow More Food Scheme'. It is further made
out that the original grantee Munishami S/o Marappa died
and the legal representatives of said Munishami had
executed a registered Sale Agreement in favour of the
husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner Nos.2
and 3. Subsequently, the General Power of Attorney was
executed and the Sale Deed came to be executed on
03.09.2023.
3. It is further submitted that on 23.12.2004, the
land was converted by paying the conversion fine and it is
only thereafter on 29.10.2021, the respondent No.5 had
filed an application seeking restoration. The Assistant
Commissioner, meanwhile had rejected the petition, while
the Deputy Commissioner in an appeal filed has allowed
NC: 2025:KHC:51747
HC-KAR
the application of legal representatives of grantees which
has been challenged in the present proceedings.
4. Sri V.B.Shivakumar, learned counsel for the
petitioners would submit that the grant was under the
'Grow More Food Scheme' and it is settled position of law
that the land granted under the said Scheme falls outside
the purview of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands)
Act, 1978 ['PTCL Act' for short']. It is also submitted that
once land is converted for non-agricultural purpose, it
comes outside the purview of the PTCL Act, as it does not
remain 'granted land'. It is further submitted that the
Assistant Commissioner had correctly rejected the
application of the legal representatives of grantee.
5. It is submitted that, though the Deputy
Commissioner makes an observation that the grant is
under 'Grow More Food Scheme', however, has wrongly
proceeded to allow the application of the legal
NC: 2025:KHC:51747
HC-KAR
representatives of grantee. It is further submitted that
the legal representatives of grantee have executed a Deed
of Declaration during the pendency of the proceedings and
hence, are estopped from taking any stand assailing the
grant and invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the legal
representatives of grantee submits that it is a matter of
record that the Deed of Declaration has been executed.
7. Noticed the order of the Assistant Commissioner
dated 29.10.2021 passed in PTCL SR(De) 32/2020. In
terms of the said proceedings, the Assistant Commissioner
has recorded a finding that the grant of land under the
'Grow More Food Scheme' was under Rule 43-G of the
Mysore Land Revenue Rules, 1960 and after referring to
the said Rule, the Assistant Commissioner had recorded a
finding that the grant falls outside the purview of the
proceedings under the PTCL Act.
NC: 2025:KHC:51747
HC-KAR
8. Perused the order of the Deputy Commissioner
dated 22.07.2025, which is impugned in the present
proceedings. The Deputy Commissioner records a
categorical finding at para-7 of the order that the land has
been granted under the 'Grow More Food Scheme',
however, the application of legal representatives of
grantee is accepted.
9. It must be noticed as rightly pointed out by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that where
there is a finding that the land is granted under the 'Grow
More Food Scheme, then, the land does not fall within the
category of 'granted land' and accordingly, the provisions
of PTCL Act cannot be invoked. The order of the
Co-ordinate Bench dated 25.02.2022 passed in
W.P.No.12748/2011 in the case of Nanjamma and
Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, has in detail
examined the legal position and after referring to various
judgments has opined that the land granted under the
NC: 2025:KHC:51747
HC-KAR
'Grow More Food Scheme' cannot be considered to be a
land granted to a person belonging to a depressed class.
10. Accordingly, this Court finds that the Deputy
Commissioner once having recorded a finding that the
'grant' undisputedly is a grant under the 'Grow More Food
Scheme', ought not to have entered into any further
adjudication, as 'grant' under Rule 43-G of the Mysore
Land Revenue Rules, 1960 are to be treated as 'Grant'
under the 'Grow More Food Scheme' and if that were to be
so, in light of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench
in Nanjamma's case as well as reiterated in other cases,
cases, including in W.A.Nos.4127-4134/2013 in the
case of Sri Muniraju and Others v. State of Karnataka
and Others, the 'grant' made under Rule 43-G of the
Mysore Land Revenue Rules, 1960 under the 'Grow More
Food Scheme' cannot be treated to be granted land where
the land is granted at an upset price. The position as
noticed by the Assistant Commissioner that the land in the
present case was also granted at an upset price is to be
NC: 2025:KHC:51747
HC-KAR
accepted. Further, the legal representatives of grantee
themselves are estopped from raising any contention to
the contrary, in light of the admitted position that they
have executed the Deed of Declaration in favour of the
petitioners.
11. In light of the discussion made hereinabove, the
petition is allowed. The order of the Deputy
Commissioner dated 22.07.2025 is set aside and the order
of the Assistant Commissioner dated 29.10.2021 stands
affirmed.
12. I.A.No.2/2025 for impleading is disposed of as
not calling for adjudication, in light of the petition being
disposed of on merits.
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
VGR
