Karnataka High Court
Smt Eramma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 6 January, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:77
WP No. 15158 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 15158 OF 2019 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT ERAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
2. SMT.PILLAMMA
D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
3. SRI.KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
4. SRI.NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by 5. SRI.RAGHAVENDRA
KIRAN
KUMAR R S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
Location: AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA P-(1) TO (5) ARE R/AT AGALAKOTE VILLAGE,
CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK.
6. NAGAMMA
D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
6TH PHASE, SARAKKI J.P.NAGAR,
BENGALURU PIN-560 078.
7. SMT.VENKATESHAMMA
D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:77
WP No. 15158 of 2019
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
BEHIND SLS TILES FACTORY,
SULIBELE ROAD,DEVANAHALLI TOWN,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN-562 100.
8. SMT.BHAGYAMMA
D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
CHOKKAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
PIN-562 103.
9. SMT.MANJULA
D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
BAICHAPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN-562 100
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.B.K.SANJAY., FOR PETITIONER-4;
SMT. SAHANA PAI., ADVOCATE FOR P-1 TO P-3)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 100
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION
DODDABALLAPURA
PIN-561 203
3. THE TAHSILDAR
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:77
WP No. 15158 of 2019
DEVANAHALLI-562 100
4. SMT.MALAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT CHANNAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHANRAYAPATNA HOBLI,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN-562 135
5. SMT.ANJINAMMA
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT CHANNAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHANRAYAPATNA HOBLI,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
PIN-562 135
6. SRI.MUKTHAR AHMED KHAN
S/O LATE BASHEER KHAN,
NO.88/11, 2ND CROSS,
COLES PARK, FRAZER TOWN,
BENGALURU-560 005.
7. SRI.B.NAGARAJ
S/O BYRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
SUDDAGUNTEPALYA
K.R.PURAM HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
PIN-560 036.
8. SRI JAYARAM
S/O CHIKKA KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
GOREGUNTEPALYA,
JARAKABANDEKAVAL,
YESHWANTPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
PIN-560 064.
9. SRI.RAJANNA
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:77
WP No. 15158 of 2019
S/O LATE HUCHCHAPPANAVARA SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
10. SRI.NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE HUCHCHAPPANAVARA SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
11. SRI.RAMACHANDRA
S/O LATE DYAVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R-9 TO 11 ARE
R/AT CHANNAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK PIN-562 100.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIYAPPA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3;
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR.L., ADVOCATE FOR R-4, 5 AND 11;
SRI. SURESH D.DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE FOR R-9 & 10;
VIDE ORDER DATED:20.01.2024 NOTICE TO R-6 TO R-8 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO
QUASH COMMON ORDER DATED 29.03.2019 PASSED BY THE
R-1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
VIDE ANENXURE-A, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:77
WP No. 15158 of 2019
ORAL ORDER
1. An application for resumption was filed by the
grantee contending that the granted land had been
sold in contravention of the terms of the grant.
2. It was his case that the grant was made on
01.02.1965 and the property was sold in the same
year on 12.11.1965 and three years thereafter
another portion was sold on 24.06.1968.
3. In other words, within a period of about three years,
the entire extent of granted land was sold in
contravention of the terms of the grant.
4. The Assistant Commissioner accepted this plea and
passed an order of resumption.
5. However, in appeal, the Deputy Commissioner has
set aside the order on the ground that the invocation
of the resumption proceedings was belated inasmuch
as the application was filed in the year 2012 i.e.,
NC: 2025:KHC:77
nearly after a period of 33 years and hence, the
proceedings could not be sustained. It is as against
this order, the present Writ Petition is filed.
6. It is settled law that a proceeding for resumption
would have to be initiated within a reasonable period.
7. Three Division Benches of this Court in the cases of
Gouramma1, Akkayamma2and Manjula3 have laid
down the law that notwithstanding the amendment
of the year 2023 to the Karnataka Scheduled Castes
And Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of
Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act')
if an application for resumption is filed belatedly, the
same was required to be annulled.
Smt. Gouramma @ Gangamma v. The Deputy Commissioner & Others, W.A.
Smt. Akkayamma v. The State of Karnataka & Others, W.A. No.1081/2023
Smt. M. Manjula & Others v. The Deputy Commissioner & Others, W.A. No.210/2023
NC: 2025:KHC:77
8. In fact, in the latest judgment in Manjula's case it
has been held that delay of 12 years was adequate
to annul the proceedings.
9. In the instant case, since 33 years had elapsed since
the PTCL Act had come into force, at the time the
application for resumption was filed, the said
judgments would come into operation.
Consequently, the order of the Deputy Commissioner
cannot be found fault with and the Writ Petition will
have to be dismissed.
10. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that there are civil suits pending between the parties
and liberty may be given to the petitioner to urge all
such contentions that are available in law to him in
those suits.
11. It is needless to state that in a civil suit, it is open for
the parties to raise such contentions and to seek
NC: 2025:KHC:77
such reliefs as are permissible in law. Subject to the
above observations, Writ Petition is dismissed.
12. It is also needless to state that if the revenue entries
are restored in favour of the purchaser, pursuant to
the order of the Deputy Commissioner, they would
also be subject to the ultimate result of the suits that
are said to be pending in the Civil Court.
13. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
HNM
