Karnataka High Court
Sri.N.Venkataraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 January, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:999
WP No. 3840 of 2022
C/W WP No. 3857 of 2022
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. 3840 OF 2022 (SCST)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 3857 OF 2022
IN W.P.No. 3840 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI.MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT GOPALAPURA VILLAGE
(GUMMANAHALLI) - 562 157
BANGALORE POST
JALA HOBLI
Digitally BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
signed by
KIRAN
KUMAR R 2 . SRI NARAYANASWAMY
Location: S/O LATE CHINNAPPA
HIGH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
KARNATAKA R/AT GOPALAPURA VILLAGE
(GUMMANAHALLI) - 562 157
BANGALORE POST
JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
3 . SRI ANJANAPPA
S/O LATE CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT GOPALAPURA VILLAGE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:999
WP No. 3840 of 2022
C/W WP No. 3857 of 2022
(GUMMANAHALLI) - 562 157
BANGALORE POST
JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY PRINCIPAL REVENUE SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 01.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION
K G ROAD, BANGALORE - 09.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
K G ROAD, BANGALORE - 09.
4. SRI L RAVINDRA
S/O L LAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI 562 157
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
5. SRI L MUNISWAMY
S/O L LAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI 562 157
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
6. SRI L PARTHA
S/O L LAKSHMAIAH
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:999
WP No. 3840 of 2022
C/W WP No. 3857 of 2022
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI 562 157
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
7. SRI L NAVEEN KUMAR
S/O L LAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI 562 157
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3;
SRI. T.N.VISHWANATHA., FOR SRI. GIRISHA.T.R.,
ADVOCATE FOR R-4 TO R-7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED DATED 02.11.2021 ON THE FILE
OF R-3 WHICH IS PRODUCED UNDER ANNEXURE-A., ETC.
IN W.P.No. 3857 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.N.VENKATARAJU
S/O. LATE. NARAYANAPPA,
DEAD BY LRS.,
1(a) SMT. N.VIJAYALAKSHMI,
W/O LATE VENKATARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT No.46,
SUBHASHNAGARA COLONY,
GORAVIGERE,
BANGALORE-560 067.
1(b) KUM.V.SNEHA.,
NC: 2025:KHC:999
D/O LATE VENKATARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT No.46,
SUBHASHNAGARA COLONY,
GORAVIGERE,
BANGALORE-560 067.
1(c) SRI.V.PRABHAS,
S/O LATE VENKATARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/AT No.46,
SUBHASHNAGARA COLONY,
GORAVIGERE,
BANGALORE-560 067.
2. SMT. SAROJA,
W/O. LATE. N. NARASIMHAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT GOPALAPURA VILLAGE,
(GUMMANAHALLI) 562157,
BANGALURU POST,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
3. KUM. CHANDINI
D/O. LATE. N NARASIMHAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT GOPALAPURA VILLAGE,
(GUMMANAHALLI) 562157,
BANGALURU POST,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
4. SRI. CHANDAN,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
S/O. LATE. NARASIMHAMURTHY
R/AT GOPALAPURA VILLAGE,
(GUMMANAHALLI) 562157,
BANGALURU POST, JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
NC: 2025:KHC:999
5. SRI. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O. LATE. KADARIYAPPA,
R/AT GOPALAPURA VILLAGE,
(GUMMANAHALLI) 562157,
BANGALURU POST,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
6. SRI. C MUNIRAJU
S/O. KADIRIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT GOPALAPURA VILLAGE,
(GUMMANAHALLI) 562157,
BANGALURU POST,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY PRINCIPAL REVENUE SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE 01.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION,
K G ROAD,
BANGALORE 09.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
K G ROAD, BANGALORE 09.
4. SRI. L RAVINDRA,
S/O. L LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEAS,
R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
NC: 2025:KHC:999
JALA HOLI - 562157,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
5. SRI. L MUNISWAMY
S/O. L LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JALA HOLI - 562157,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
6. SRI. L PARTHA
S/O. L LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JALA HOLI - 562157,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
7. SRI. L NAVEEN KUMAR,
S/O. L LAKSHMAIAH,
R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JALA HOLI - 562157,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3;
SRI. T.N.VISHWANATHA., FOR
SRI. T.R.GIRISH., ADVOCATE FOR R-4 TO R-7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED DATED 02.11.2021 ON THE FILE OF R-3 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A, ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 20.12.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
NC: 2025:KHC:999
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CAV ORDER
1. These petitions are in relation to two extents of 04
acres of lands in Sy.No.119 which were granted by
the Government to Chinnappa and Kadirappa.
2. On 13.04.1962, the Government granted an extent
of 04 acres each in Mahadeva Kodigehalli village, Jala
Hobli to Chinnappa and Kadirappa, who belonged to
scheduled caste, with a condition that the property
should not be alienated for a period of fifteen years.
3. However, Chinnappa sold 02 acres in favour of
B.T.Shivakumar, minor represented by his mother
Kempamma under a registered sale deed and
28.10.1966.
4. Chinnappa sold the remaining extent of 02 acres in
favour of Gowramma under a sale deed dated
25.11.1966.
NC: 2025:KHC:999
5. Thus, in respect of the lands granted in the year
1962, Chinnappa sold the entire extent of 04 acres in
the year 1966 itself.
6. As far as Kadirappa was concerned, he sold 02 acres
in favour of B.T.Vijayashankar who was also a minor
represented by his mother Kempamma under a sale
deed dated 14.06.1967 and he sold the remaining
portion in favour of G.K.Tammanna on 12.06.1969.
7. Thus, Kadirappa sold the lands granted to him in the
years 1967 and 1969.
8. Thus, both the above mentioned lands were sold in
contravention of the terms of the grant which
prescribed 15 years as a period of alienation.
9. It is also stated that thereafter on 12.11.1982, the
entire property granted to Kadirappa was sold to
Sundar Raj, M.Nataraj and A.P. Sundar Shekhar, who
in turn have sold it in favour of Arun Kumar Kanoria
and others in the year 1994.
NC: 2025:KHC:999
10. Similarly, it is also stated in the year 1983, the entire
property granted to Chinnappa was sold on
25.06.1983 to Sundar Raj, M.Nataraj and A.P.
Sundar Shekhar, and they have in turn also sold it to
Arun Kumar Kanoria in the year 1994.
11. On 14.02.2001, the legal heirs of Chinnappa initiated
proceedings under the provisions of Karnataka
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition
of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act/PTCL Act' for brevity), for
resumption of the land granted to Chinnappa on the
ground that the land has been sold in contravention
of the terms of the grant.
12. Similarly, on 14.02.2003, the legal heirs of Kadirappa
also initiated proceedings under the PTCL Act for
resumption and restoration.
13. In other words, after 22 years and 24 years
respectively, after the PTCL Act was enacted in the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:999
year 1979, the proceedings were initiated by the
legal heirs of Kadirappa and Chinnappa for
resumption of the lands.
14. The Assistant Commissioner accepted the
applications and ordered for resumption, the
purchasers in turn preferred appeals and the
appellate authority, after hearing the parties, by the
impugned orders has allowed the appeals and set
aside the orders of resumption principally on the
ground that the proceedings had been initiated after
inordinate delay.
15. Being aggrieved, the legal heirs of the grantees are
before this Court by way of these writ petitions.
16. It is sought to be contended by them that by virtue
of the amendment to the PTCL Act, the proceedings
initiated for resumption cannot be rejected on the
ground of limitation.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:999
17. In the written arguments that has been filed by the
petitioners, it is sought to be contended that the
limitation or delay in invoking the provisions of the
PTCL Act cannot be the criteria to determine whether
the lands are required to be resumed or not.
18. Reliance is sought to be placed on the judgments of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Chhedi
Lal Yadav1, Harishchandra Hegde2 and Papaiah3.
19. In the written arguments, the portion of the
judgment extracted which was rendered in
Harishchandra Hegde, the Apex Court, in fact,
stated that an order of resumption is required to be
passed with a view to avoid unnecessary delay or
protracting the proceedings.
20. Similarly, the portion extracted in the written
arguments which was been rendered in the case of
Chhedi Lal Yadav and others vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (Dead) through Legal
Representatives and others, (2018) 12 SCC 527;
Harishchandra Hegde vs. State of Karnataka, (2004) 9 SCC 780;
Papaiah vs. State of Karnataka, (1996) 10 SCC 533.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:999
Chhedi Lal Yadav, the Apex Court has in fact stated
that the action which was grossly delayed and taken
beyond a reasonable time would be incorrect and it is
stated that what is reasonable time would determine
on the circumstances of each case.
21. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the later
judgment i.e., Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi4 has held
that the delay in invoking the provisions of the PTCL
Act would have to be taken within a reasonable time
and if not, the application for resumption would have
to be rejected.
22. Three Division Benches of this Court in
Smt.M.Manjula5, Smt.Gouramma alias
Gangamma6 and Smt.Akkayamma's7 cases have
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another, (2020) 14 SCC 232;
"8. ....We have no hesitation in upholding that the present application for restoration of land made by
respondent-Rajappa was made after an unreasonably long period and was liable to be dismissed on
that ground."
Smt.M.Manjula vs. The Deputy Commissioner and Others - 2024:KHC:51015-DB
Smt.Gouramma Alias Gangamma vs. The Deputy Commissioner and Others - 2024:KHC-
D:10666-DB
Smt.Akkayamma vs. The State of Karnataka and Others - 2024:KHC:48227-DB
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:999
held that if the proceedings for resumption are
initiated belatedly, such proceedings are required to
be quashed. In fact, in the latest judgment, it is
stated that if the proceedings are initiated after
twelve years, the doctrine of laches would come into
play.
23. In light of the aforesaid judgments rendered by the
Division Benches of this Court, which are based on
the judgment of the Apex Court, the orders of the
Deputy Commissioner in annulling the resumption
proceedings on the ground that they were initiated
after an inordinate delay cannot be found fault with.
24. Consequently, there is no merit in these writ
petitions and the petitions are therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
RK
