Karnataka High Court
Sri. P. P. Krishnappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 10 January, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
WP No. 22712 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36885 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 22712 OF 2016 (SCST)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 36885 OF 2016
IN W.P.No. 22712 OF 2016:
BETWEEN:
M.KRISHNAMURTHY
S/OMUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT DODDAKANNALLI VILLAGE,
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 036.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
Digitally SRI. M.N.PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE)
signed by
KIRAN
KUMAR R AND:
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KARNATAKA BANGALORE DISTRICT,
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
BENGALURU-560 009.
3. P.KRISHNAPPA.,
S/O LATE MUNIPOOJAPPA.,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs.,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
WP No. 22712 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36885 of 2016
3(a) SMT. USHA,
W/O LATE P.P.KRISHNAPPA.,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
3(b) SMT.ARCHANA.K.,
D/O LATE P.P.KRISHNAPPA.,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
3(c) SRI.GOUTHAM.K.,
S/O LATE P.P.KRISHNAPPA.,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
3(d) SRI. PREETHAM.K.,
S/O LATE P.P.KRISHNAPPA.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
R-3(a) TO (d) ALL ARE R/AT
DODDAKANNALLI VILLAGE,
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK-560 037
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
4. NARAYASWAMY,
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA.,
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
5. G.GOPALA,
S/O LATE GANGAPPA,
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
6. K.L.RAMAIAH,
S/O K.LAKKAPPA,
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
7. RAJANNA,
S/P ABBAYAPPA,
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
8. KRISHNAMURTHY,
S/O ABBAYAPPA.,
AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
9. MANJUNATHA,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
WP No. 22712 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36885 of 2016
S/O ABBAYAPPA.,
AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
10. NAGESH,
S/O ABBAYAPPA.,
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
R-3 TO 10 ARE
R/O DODDAKANNALLI VILLAGE,
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 037.
11. B.M.KARUNESH,
S/O LATE B.M.MADAIAH,
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
R/AT No.607, 15TH CROSS,
6TH PHASE, J.P.NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 078.
12. SHAJI ANTHONY,
S/O A.J.ANTHONY,
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
R/AT No.16, CHANDRA REDDY LAYOUT,
EJIPURA, VIVEKNAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560 047.
13. CHACKO THOMAS KATTAPURATHU,
S/O THOMAS KATTAPARATHU,
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
R/AT No.135, CLARION ESTATE,
DODDAKANNALLI,
CAREMLARAM POST,
BENGALURU-560 035.
14. MATHEWS PAUL,
S/O LATE I.M.POULOS,
SINCE DEAD BY LRs.,
14(a) BORIS MATHEW,
S/O LATE MATHEWS PAUL,
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
14(b) PAUL MATHEW,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
WP No. 22712 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36885 of 2016
S/O LATE MATHEWS PAUL,
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
R-14(a) &(b) R/AT No.134
4th MAIN ROAD, 6TH SECTOR,
HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 102.
15. ABY EIPE,
S/O A J ANTHONY
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,,
R/AT No.16, CHANDRA REDDY LAYOUT,
EJIPURA, VIVEKNAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560 047.
16. EMANUAL THOMAS
S/O R.J.THOMAS,
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
R/AT No.16, CHANDRA REDDY LAYOUT,
EJIPURA, VIVEKNAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560 047.
17. M.NANDINI, W/O SHANMUGAM,
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
R/AT No.2, INDIRA GANDHI STREET
LINGAIAHNAPALYA, 3RD CROSS,
ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560 008.
18. R.LALU,
S/O M.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR,
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
19. R. SHIBU,
S/O M.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR,
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
R-18 AND R-19 ARE R/AT No.28
'INDRAPRASTHA', 3RD A CROSS ROAD,
ANNASANDRAPALYA EXTENSION
HAL POST, BENGALURU-560 047.
20. D.LAKKANNA,
S/O LATE DASAPPA,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
WP No. 22712 of 2016
C/W WP No. 36885 of 2016
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
No.308, SHANTHI NILAYA,
SHANTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 027.
21. ABBAIAH,
S/O MUTHYALAPPA,
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
22. NARAYANASWAMY,
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA.,
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
23. G.GOPALA,
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA.,
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
R-21 TO 23 ARE R/AT
DODDAKANNALLI VILLAGE,
VARTHU HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 037.
24. KRISHNA REDDY,
S/O LATE ANNAIAH REDDY,
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
25. VENUGOPAL,
S/O KRISHNA REDDY,
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
R-24 & 25 ARE R/AT No.33/1
DODDAKANNALLI VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD,
CARMELARAM POST,
BENGALURU-560 035.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI. K.N.SUBBA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R-3(a TO d),
R-4 & R-5;
SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. M.V.SUNDAR RAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-11;
SRI.JAYAPRAKASH., ADVOCATE FOR R-24;
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
SRI. E.V.GOPALAKRISHNA POTTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-13 &
R-14 (A & B)
SRI.V.SOMASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-20;
R-6, R-8, R-10 & R-22 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
VIDE ORDER DATED:24.11.2016, NOTICE TO R-7, R-9,
R-12, R-15, R-16, R-17, R-23 & R-25 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
VIDE ORDER DATED:31.08.2016, NOTICE TO R-18 AND
R-19 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
VIDE ORDER DATED: 27.10.2016, PETITION AS AGAINST
R-21 STANDS ABATED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, QUASH THE
COMMON ORDER DATED:10.03.2016 IN APPEAL
Nos.K.SC.ST.21 & 64/2011-12 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE
ANNEXURE-E, IN SO FAR AS DISMISSAL OF APPEAL
No.K.SC.ST.21/2011-12 AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE
SAID APPEAL No.K.SC.ST.21/2011-12, ETC.
IN W.P.No.36885 OF 2016:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. P.P.KRISHNAPPA.,
S/O LATE MUINIPOOJAPPA.,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs.,
1(a) SMT. USHA,
W/O LATE SRI.P.P.KRISHNAPPA.,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
1(b) SRI. ARCHANA.K.,
D/O LATE SRI.P.P.KRISHNAPPA.,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
1(c) SRI.GOUTHAM.K.,
S/O LATE SRI.P.P.KRISHNAPPA.,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
1(d) SRI.PREETHAM.K.,
S/O LATE SRI.P.P.KRISHNAPPA.,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
2. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY,
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA.,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
3. SRI. GOPALA.G.,
S/O LATE GANGAPPA.,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT DODDAKANNELLI VILLAGE,
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(SMT. USHA-PETITIONER No.1(a),
SMT. ARCHANA.K., PETITIONER No.1(b),
SRI.GOUTHAM.K., PETITIONER No.1(c);
SRI. PREETHAM.K., PETITIONER No.1(d)
SRI. NARAYANASWAMY., PETITIONER No.2 AND
SRI. GOPALA.G., PETITIONER No.3 (ABSENT))
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 009.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION
KANDAYA BHAVAN., K.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 009.
3. SRI. B.M.KARUNESH,
S/O LATE B.M.MADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT No.607, 15TH CROSS,
6TH PHASE, J.PNAGAR,
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
BENGALURU-560 078.
4. SRI.SAII ANTHONY,
S/O SRI.A.J.ANTHONY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT No.16, CHANDRA REDDY LAYOUT,
EJIPURA, VIVEKNAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560 047.
5. SRI. CHACKO THOMAS KATTAPURATHU,
S/O SRI.THOMAS KATTAPURATHU,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT No.135, CLARION ESTATE,
DODDAKANNELLI,
CARMELARAM POST,
BENGALURU-560 035.
6. SRI. MATHEWS PAUL,
S/O LATE I.M.POLOS,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs.,
6(a) MR. BORIS MATHEW,
S/O LATE MATHEW PAUL,
AGED MAJOR,
6(b) MR.PAUL MATHEW,
S/O LATE MATHEW PAUL,
AGED MAJOR,
BOTH ARE R/AT No.L-134,
4TH MAIN, 14TH CROSS,
6TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560 102.
7. SRI. ABY EIPE,
S/O SRI. A.J.ANTHONY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT No.16, CHANDRA REDDY LAYOUT,
EJIPURA, VIVEKNAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560 047.
8. SRI. EMANUAL THOMAS,
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
S/O SRI. R.J.THOMAS,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT No16,
CHANDRA REDDY LAYOUT,
EJIPURA, VIVEKNAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560 047.
9. SMT. NANDINI.M.,
W/O SRI.SHANMUGAM,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT No.2, INDIRA GANDHI STREET,
LINGAIAHNAPALYA,
3RD CROSS, ULSOOR,
BENGALURU-560 008.
10. SRI.S.KOTHANDARAMAN,
S/O SRI SHANMUGAM,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT No.1, INDIRA GANDHI STREET,
LINGAIAHNAPALYA,
3RD CROSS, ULSOOR,
BENGALURU-560 008.
11. SRI. LALU.R.,
S/O SRI.M.RAJASHEKARAN NAIR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
12 SRI.SHIBU.R.,
S/O SRI.M.RAJASHEKARAN NAIR.,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R-11 AND R-12 ARE R/AT No.38,
INDRAPRASTHA, ANNASANDRAPALYA
EXTENSION, HAL POST,
BENGALURU-560 017.
13. SRI. D.LAKKANNA.,
S/O LATE DURGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
R/AT No.308,
SANTHI NILAYA,
SHANTHINAGARA,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
BENGALURU-560 027
ALSO R/AT No.121, 5TH BLOVK,
10TH CROSS,
1ST MAIN KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU-560 034.
14. SRI. K.L.RAMAIAH,
S/O LATE LAKKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
R/AT DODDAKANNELLI
VILLAGE, VARTHU HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 035.
15. SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA,
S/O MUNIGA @ MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
R/AT DODDAKANNELLI
VILALGE, VARTHUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 035.
16. SRI. A.KRISHNA REDDY,
S/O LATE ANNAIAH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT No.33/1,
DODDAKANNELLI VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD,
CARMELARAM POST,
BENGALURU - 560 035.
17. SRI. K.VENUGOPAL,
S/O A.KRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT DODDAKANNELLI
VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI,
CARMELARAM POST,
BENGALURU-560 035.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. M.V.SUNDAR RAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
SRI. E.V. GOPALAKRISHNAN POTTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-5,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
R-6(A & B)
SRI. K.MANIK PRABHU., ADVOCATE FOR R-16;
R-4, R-7, R-8 TO R-15 & R-17 ARE SERVED AND
UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, CALL FOR ENTIRE
RECORDS IN K.SC.ST/APPEAL No.21/2011-12 AND APPEAL
No.64/2011-12 ON THE FILE OF THE R-1 AND QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-A DATED:10.03.2016 IN
SO FAR AS THE ORDER IN APPEAL No.K.SC.ST/64/2011-12 IS
CONCERNED AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPEAL IN
No.K.SC/ST No. 64/2011-12 ON THE FILE OF THE R-1, ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 17.12.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CAV ORDER
1. An application for resumption and restoration of land
-- bearing Sy. No. 11 (new Sy. No. 140) measuring 5
acres situated at Doddakkanahalli village, Varthur
Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, which was said to have
been granted to Muniga, son of Muniga --was
preferred by his great grandchildren P. Krishnappa
(the great grandson through his first son Poojappa),
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
Narayanswamy (his great grandson through his
second son Chikkagantalappa) and Gopal (his
grandson through his third son Gangappa).
2. Their genealogy, as stated by them, is as follows:
Muniga
Poojappa Chikkagantalappa Gangappa
Munipoojappa
Obalappa Narayanappa Krishnappa G.Gopal (P3)
P.Krishnappa (P1)
Poojappa Narayanaswamy (P2)
3. They contended that the land granted to Muniga (son
of Muniga) had been succeeded to by his three sons --
Poojappa, Chikkagantalappa and Gangappa who were
in joint possession, and on their death, their sons --
Munipoojappa, Obalappa, Narayanappa, Krishnappa
and Gopal had succeeded to the property, and they
had partitioned the property amongst themselves.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
4. In this partition, they stated that the granted land had
been divided in the following manner:
i. To the branch of the 1st son of Muniga i.e., Poojappa
represented by his grandson P. Krishnappa, an extent
of 1 acre was allotted;
ii. To the branch of the 2nd son of Muniga i.e.,
Chikkagantalappa represented by his two sons; i.e., to
Obalappa -- an extent of 1 acre 06 guntas, and to
Narayanappa -- an extent of 17 guntas were allotted.
iii. To the branch of the 3rd son of Muniga i.e., Gangappa
represented by his two sons; Krishnappa and Gopal,
an extent of 35 guntas had been allotted and 1 acre
25 guntas was retained with the joint family.
5. They also stated that this land had been phoded as
Sy.Nos.140/1, 140/2, 140/3, 140/4 and 140/5.
6. They further sought to contend that the following
alienations had been made by persons who had no
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
right over the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 140/1 and
140/2:
In respect of Sy. No. 140/1 -
i. 10.09.1993: Abbaiah had sold 1 acre 27 guntas in Sy.
No. 140/1 to K. Srinivas Reddy.
ii. 1995: K. Srinivas Reddy, in turn sold this land to
Wilson Menezes.
iii. 24.07.2002: Wilson Menezes had sold this land to
B.M. Karunesh.
In respect of Sy. No. 140/2 -
i. 10.11.1993: Gopal and Krishnappa (the 3rd branch of
Muniga) had sold 35 guntas that had been allotted to
them to D. Lakanna.
ii. 15.10.2001: D. Lakkanna had sold 6 ½ guntas out of
the 35 guntas to Saji Anthony.
iii. 15.10.2001: D. Lakkanna had sold another 8 ½
guntas out of the 35 guntas to Mathews Paul.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
iv. 09.11.2001: D. Lakkanna had sold 20 guntas out of
the 35 guntas to Chacko Thomas Kattapurathu.
In respect of Sy. No. 140/3 -
i. 10.11.1993: Narayanaswamy son of Narayanappa sold
the 17 guntas that had been allotted to Narayanappa
to D. Lakkanna.
ii. 15.10.2001: D. Lakkanna had sold 6 ½ guntas out of
the 17 guntas to Aby Eipe.
iii. 15.10.2001: D. Lakkanna had sold 2 ½ guntas out of
the 17 guntas to Emmanuel Thomas.
iv. 15.10.2001: D. Lakkanna had sold 8 guntas out of the
17 guntas to Mathews Paul.
In respect of Sy. No. 140/4 -
v. 1993: P. Krishnappa and his father Munipoojappa had
sold 36 guntas out of the 1 acre allotted to
Munipoojappa to D. Lakkanna.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
vi. 2001: D. Lakkanna had sold 5 ½ guntas out of 36
guntas to Emmanuel Thomas.
vii. 2001: D. Lakkanna had sold 3 ½ guntas out of the 36
guntas Mathews Paul.
viii. 27 guntas had been retained by D. Lakkanna.
In respect of Sy. No. 140/5 -
i. 10.11.1993: Obalappa and his son Poojappa (2nd
branch of Muniga) had sold 1 acre 03 guntas allotted
to them to D Lakkanna.
ii. 26.03.2001: D Lakkanna had sold 1 gunta out of the 1
acre 03 guntas to Nandini.
iii. 25.02.2002: D Lakkanna had sold 2 ½ guntas out of
the 1 acre 03 guntas to S. Kothandaraman.
iv. 2001: D Lakkanna had sold 9 ½ guntas out of the 1
acre 03 guntas to R. Lalu and R. Shibu.
v. 20 guntas had been retained by D Lakkanna.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
7. They contended that the above alienations were in
contravention of Section 4(2) of the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of
Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ("the PTCL Act")
and were thus null and void, and that they were
required to be resumed and restored to them as they
were the legal heirs of the original grantee -- Muniga
(son of Muniga).
8. During the pendency of these proceedings, KL
Ramaiah sought to be impleaded on the ground that
he had a right in the granted lands, but his application
was rejected, against which, an appeal was filed
wherein he was ordered to be impleaded as an
additional respondent and accordingly, he was
impleaded as the 4th petitioner.
9. Apart from the above, one Munivenkatappa also
sought to be impleaded as a petitioner contending
that the proceedings for resumption based on an
alleged grant of the year 1927-28 could not be
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
entertained since the land bearing Sy. No. 140 was
actually granted to him in the year 1964 and an
attempt was being made to usurp his land. This
application was also allowed and Munivenkatappa was
also impleaded as an additional petitioner.
10. The Assistant Commissioner, after hearing the parties
and after holding an enquiry, proceeded to pass an
order on 14.11.2011, rejecting the application. In this
order, he held that the grant of land made in favour of
Muniga, son of Muniga in Sy. No.11 (after Durasthi
Sy.No.140) measuring 5 acres could not be verified as
the Thasildar had not furnished the original records,
but since even according to the applicants, the land
had been granted during the year 1927-28, this period
was a "No Rule period" and hence, the question of
there being a bar for non-alienation would not arise.
He accordingly dismissed the application filed for
resumption by the great grandchildren of Muniga (son
of Muniga).
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
11. He also went on to hold that there were no original
grant records which established that there had been a
grant in the year 1963-64 to Munivenkatappa and,
therefore, the question of considering his claim did not
arise.
12. Being aggrieved by this rejection of the resumption
application and the finding that the grant of 1964 had
not been established, an appeal was preferred before
the Deputy Commissioner by M. Krishnamurthy, son of
Munivenkatappa (who had gotten himself impleaded in
the resumption proceedings) and also by the great
grandchildren of Muniga i.e., P. Krishnappa and
Narayanswamy and grandchild of Muniga i.e.,
G.Gopala (who had filed the application for
resumption).
13. The Deputy Commissioner by an order dated
10.03.2014 allowed the appeal of Munivenkatappa's
son--M. Krishnamurthy after coming to the conclusion
that the grant sought to be set up of the year 1927-28
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
was doubtful, as the grant records produced by the
applicants in support of the grant had described the
land in the year 1927 as being situated in
Doddakannalli village in Bangalore South Taluk but, as
a matter of fact, Bangalore South Taluk had only been
created in 1940.
14. He also came to the conclusion that the grant made in
favour of Munivenkatappa in the year 1964 was a
valid grant and since this granted land had been
transferred in contravention of the terms of the grant,
the sale deeds were liable to be declared as null and
void and the land was required to be resumed.
15. Being aggrieved by this order, the purchaser B.M.
Karunesh preferred a writ petition in WP.17016/2014
before this Court and this Court after hearing the
parties, proceeded to allow the writ petition by an
order dated 24.07.2014, after noticing that the
Deputy Commissioner had not afforded an opportunity
of hearing to the parties. This Court, accordingly,
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
proceeded to remand the matter to the Deputy
Commissioner for fresh consideration.
16. The Deputy Commissioner, on remand, proceeded to
dismiss the appeals filed by Munivenkatappa's son and
also the appeal filed by the applicants who had
originally sought resumption.
17. In this order, the Deputy Commissioner had recorded
a finding that the land had been granted in the year
1927-28 to Muniga (son of Muniga) and that the same
had been transferred on 31.03.1958 and 03.05.1960.
He stated that on the basis of the index of land and
record of rights, the grant had been established even
though the original land grant records had not been
submitted.
18. He also recorded a finding that land bearing Old Sy.
No. 133 after Durasthi had been assigned Sy. No. 140
and the old Sy. No. 11 had also been assigned after
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
Durasthi Sy. No. 140, and this factor was the cause for
the confusion.
19. He also held that when the land bearing Sy. No. 140
(after Durasthi and prior to it Sy. No. 11) had already
been granted in 1927, the question of it being once
again granted in 1964 to Munivenkatappa did not arise
and, therefore, the documents produced by him
contending that there was a grant in his favour could
not be accepted.
20. He ultimately concluded that the applicants had not
produced records to substantiate that there had been
a grant made in the year 1927-28 but he also held
that the proceedings for resumption had been invoked
only in 2005 i.e., 26 years after the PTCL Act had
come into force and due to this inordinate delay, the
claim could not be entertained. He accordingly allowed
the appeals of the purchasers and proceeded to reject
the application that had been filed for resumption.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
21. Being aggrieved by this order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner rejecting said application,
Munivenkatappa's son M. Krishnamurthy, and the
original applicants have also filed these writ petitions.
22. In the petition filed by the applicants, i.e., the great
grandchildren of the original grantee Muniga, who had
sought resumption, the counsel appearing for the
petitioners was permitted to retire by an order dated
12.07.2024, since it was stated by him that the
parties had taken back the papers to engage another
counsel. This Court thereafter directed the printing of
the name of the petitioners and also made it clear that
if alternative arrangements were not made by the
next date of hearing, the writ petition would be
dismissed for non-prosecution. Despite this order,
neither alternative arrangements were made nor did
the petitioners appear to make their submissions.
23. Since both the petitions filed by Munivenkatappa's son
and the original applicants i.e.., the great
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
grandchildren of the grantee were clubbed together,
the arguments advanced by the learned Senior
Counsel against the order of the Deputy
Commissioner, which would also apply to the other
writ petition, were considered and the matter was
heard on merits instead of being dismissing for non-
prosecution.
24. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. D.R. Ravishankar,
appearing for Munivenkatappa's son contended that
the Deputy Commissioner, though had noticed the
glaring fact that the grant set up in the year 1927
which indicated that the land was situated in
Bangalore South Taluk, when Bangalore South Taluk
had come into existence only in 1940, this would, by
itself, establish the falsity of the claim and the Deputy
Commissioner had thus erred in holding that the grant
of 1927 had been established. He submitted that this
falsity in the grant records produced would also prove
that the grant made in favour of Munivenkatappa in
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
1964 was bound to be valid. He submitted that the
Deputy Commissioner had actually not doubted the
1964 grant and he had only held that there could not
have been an overlapping grant.
25. He also submitted that the Deputy Commissioner had
basically held that the grant in favour of
Munivenkatappa was invalid and this finding would
seriously prejudice Munivenkatappa and his son as
they would have no remedy against this finding.
26. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the purchasers,
Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa submitted that the Deputy
Commissioner had basically held that the proceedings
for resumption had been initiated 26 years after the
PTCL Act had come into force and, as per the decision
of the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi's
case1 as well as N. Murugesan2, which have been
relied upon by the Division Bench of this Court in
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 14 SCC 232.
Union of India v. N. Murugesan, (2022) 2 SCC 35.
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
Gouramma's case3, if the proceedings for resumption
are initiated belatedly, the proceedings are liable to be
annulled on the ground that they are hit by Doctrine
of Laches. This decision rendered in Gouramma's
case was also followed by another Division Bench of
this Court in Akkayamma's case4, thus affirming said
position of law. Even in Manjula's case5, a Division
Bench of this Court, has affirmed the decision
rendered in Gouramma's case to deny the relief of
restoration of granted land, since the applicants had
approached the relevant authorities or the Court with
an unreasonable delay. Thus, he contends that the
impugned order could not be found fault with.
27. He also submitted that on 17.09.2021 this Court had,
after noticing that there were two claims in respect of
Sy. No.140, based on a grant of the year 1927-28 and
another, based on a grant of the year 1964, had
Gouramma @Gangamma v the Depuy Commissioner & Ors, 2024:KHC-
D:10666-DB.
Smt. Akkayamma v. the State of Karnataka & Ors., 2024:KHC:48227-DB.
Smt. M. Manjula & Ors. v. the Deputy Commissioner & Ors.,
2024:KHC:51015-DB.
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
passed an order that it would be essential to call for
records and information from the Thasildar regarding
the two survey numbers, and information was
required to be provided as to whether Sy. Nos. 11 and
140 were two different sets of lands or whether Sy.
No. 11 was later re-numbered as Sy. No. 140 or
whether some other survey number was assigned.
28. In response to this, Smt. Savithramma, learned
Additional Government Advocate placed on record a
communication addressed to her by the Thasildar
dated 23.09.2021, in which, it is stated by him that as
per the report secured from the ADLR, the original
guntas and in 1981, Sy. Nos. 146 to 153 had been
carved out of this Sy. No. 11 and again in 1987, Sy.
No. 154 had been carved out and in 2014, Sy. No. 160
had been carved out and there remained an extent of
0-06.08 guntas in Sy. No. 11.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
29. It is also stated in the letter that from the original Sy.
No. 100, in the year 1928, Sy. No. 140 had been
carved out. He also stated that Sy. No. 11 and 140
had not been phoded and he has lastly stated that
presently, Sy. No. 140 had been subdivided into Sy.
No. 140/1 to 140/5.
30. In light of the above, the principal question that arises
for consideration in these writ petitions is as to --
whether the Deputy Commissioner was justified
in upholding the order of the Assistant
Commissioner refusing to resume the land as
sought.
31. As narrated above, an application seeking resumption
was filed by three persons who claimed to be the
great grandchildren and grandchild of Muniga and this
application was filed in 2005-2006 in which it was
stated that Muniga had been granted land bearing Sy.
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
guntas and this had been sold in contravention of the
terms of the grant.
32. The Assistant Commissioner has come to the
conclusion that the applicants had not produced any
original documents relating to the land grant of the
year 1927-28 and even if their claim was accepted, as
the land had been granted in the year 1927-28 during
which period there were no rules prescribing the
period of non alienation, the alienations made cannot
be annulled since the power to resume under the PTCL
Act would be available only when there was an
alienation in contravention of the terms of the grant.
33. The Deputy Commissioner, while confirming this order
has also held that the original grant records had not
been furnished, however, he has further gone on to
state that the proceedings for resumption had been
initiated belatedly i.e., 26 years after the Act had
come into force, and hence they could not be
entertained.
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
34. In my view, this dismissal of the resumption
application cannot be found fault with for the following
reason-
35. Three Division Benches of this Hon'ble Court in the
cases of -- Gouramma, Akkayamma and Manjula
(supra) -- have held that an application for
resumption filed belatedly cannot be entertained, and
these judgments have been passed placing reliance on
the decision of the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama
Lakshmi's case (supra). In fact, the Division Benches
have said that notwithstanding the amendment made
to the PTCL Act in 2023, which had stated that an
application for resumption cannot be dismissed on the
ground of limitation, nevertheless, the doctrine of
laches would have to be applied. In fact, in the latest
decision rendered in Manjula's case, the Division
Bench has held that a delay of 12 years in initiating
the resumption proceedings had rendered the
resumption proceedings invalid.
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
36. In light of the above judgments, the reasoning of the
Deputy Commissioner for dismissing the appeal of the
applicants on the ground that the proceedings had
been initiated 26 years after the PTCL Act had come
into force cannot be found fault with. Admittedly, in
the instant case, the proceedings for resumption were
initiated only in 2005 i.e., 26 years after the Act came
into force and there was clearly an inordinate delay of
more than a quarter of a century in initiating the
resumption proceedings. Thus, the writ petition filed
by the applicants who claimed to be the legal heirs of
Muniga, the original grantee i.e., W.P.No.36885/2016
lacks merit and will have to be dismissed, and is
accordingly dismissed.
37. In respect of W.P.No.22712/2016 filed by
Munivenkatappa's son, contending that his father had
been granted land in Sy. No. 140 and that the grant
set up of the year 1927 by the legal heirs of Muniga
was bogus, in my view, cannot be considered in a
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
resumption proceedings under the PTCL Act. In my
view, this question ought not to have been raised in
resumption proceedings initiated by the legal heirs of
an alleged grantee, under the PTCL Act, and even if it
had been raised, neither the Assistant Commissioner
nor the Deputy Commissioner could have embarked
upon an enquiry and could have recorded any finding
on this aspect of the matter.
38. It is to be stated here that in a resumption
proceedings under the PTCL Act, the questions to be
considered by the authorities is whether the
applicants, who would be either the grantee or the
legal heirs of the grantee, had proved that they were
the legal heirs of the grantee; whether the land
claimed for resumption and restoration was a granted
land as defined under the PTCL Act; and whether the
granted land had been transferred in contravention of
the terms of the grant. Apart from these questions, no
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
other question can either be raised or considered by
the authorities.
39. It is therefore clear that Munivenkatappa's claim that
he had been granted land bearing Sy. No.140
measuring 5 acres in 1964 and the grant set up by
Muniga's legal heirs that Muniga had been granted
land in 1927 was a bogus grant, could neither have
been raised nor be considered in the resumption
proceedings as they were beyond the scope of an
enquiry for resumption of a granted land under the
PTCL Act.
40. Consequently, the writ petition filed by
Munivenkatappa's son i.e., W.P.No.22712/2016 is also
dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to him to
pursue his remedies before an appropriate forum
which possesses the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon his
contention that land bearing Sy. No. 140 measuring 5
acres had been granted to his father in 1964 and the
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:1001
grant of the land bearing Sy. No. 11 (New No. 140) in
favour of Muniga in the year 1928 was a bogus grant.
41. It is made clear that any observation made in these
resumption proceedings relating to the validity of the
grant made in 1964 in favour of Munivenkatappa shall
not be held against his son i.e., petitioner in
W.P.No.22712/2016 in such proceedings that he may
hereinafter initiate.
42. Consequently W.P.No.36885/2016 is dismissed, and
W.P.No.22712/2016 is also dismissed, but subject to
the liberty reserved to the petitioner in
W.P.No.22712/2016 as stated above.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
PKS
