Karnataka High Court
Smt Sonnamma vs Munivenkatappa on 23 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:2942-DB
WA No. 115 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT APPEAL NO. 115 OF 2024 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SONNAMMA,
W/O NARAYANAPPA ,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
2. SRI. C.N. AMBAREESH,
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
3. SMT. C.N RATHNAMMA,
D/O NARAYANAPPA,
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
MAYAGAIAH
VINUTHA
Location: HIGH 4. SMT. C.N ANITHA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA D/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
5. SMT NAGAMANI,
D/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 5
ARE R/AT: CHINNAPURA VILLAGE,
VAKKALERI HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 137
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. DASAPPA B, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:2942-DB
WA No. 115 of 2024
AND:
1. SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA,
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA ,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS ,
R/AT: NO.17,
CHOWDESHWARI NILAYA,
LAKE ROAD, BYRASANDRA,
C.V RAMAN NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 093
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ,
M.S BUILDING,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI ,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KOLAR SUB DIVISION,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
04/07/2023 MADE IN WP NO.24416/2022 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:2942-DB
WA No. 115 of 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. B. Dasappa for the appellants
and learned Government advocate Mr. K.S.Harish for the
respondents-the State and its authorities.
2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated 04.07.2023 of learned Single Judge, whereby the
writ petition came to be allowed.
3. The original petitioner was the heir-son of the
purchaser of the land. The challenge before learned Single
Judge was against the orders passed by the Assistant
Commissioner confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner,
whereby restoration of the land was ordered in favour of the
original grantee under the provisions of the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer
of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act, 1978).
3.1. The land bearing Sy.No.14 measuring 1 Acre
situated at Chinnapura village, Vakkaleri Hobli, Kolar Taluka,
came to be granted in favour of one Narayanappa S/o Byrappa
NC: 2025:KHC:2942-DB
who is the husband of respondent No.4. The grant was on
02.02.1980. The original grantee sold the land in favour of the
father of the petitioner by way of registered sale deed dated
17.08.1995.
3.2. After the death of the original grantee, respondent
Nos.4 to 8 in the writ petition, who are the heirs, filed an
application under the Act, 1978 seeking restoration of land in
their favour on the ground that there was a breach of
provisions of the Act, 1978.
4. Such application was filed in the year 2014. It was
after a long delay of 18 years.
5. The ground of delay was a valid ground on which
the authorities ought not to have restored the land in favour of
the grantee and the application could not have been considered
as per the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in SMT. M. MANJULA AND OTHERS Vs. THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS, which was Writ Appeal
No.210 of 2023. The discussion and the reasons supplied in the
NC: 2025:KHC:2942-DB
said decision more particularly in paragraphs 4 to 5.2 thereof
and shall be treated as part of this order in this case.
6. Additionally, learned Single Judge has noted that
the land was granted under a grant certificate under Form
No.1. It was thus a title of document in favour of the grantee.
Thus, the provisions of the Act were not applicable. In this
regard, learned Single Judge was entirely justified in relying on
the decision of the Apex Court in B.K.MUNIRAJ VS. STATE OF
KARNATAKA reported in (2008) 4 SCC 451. The land was
found to have been purchased in the public auction.
6.1. On both the counts, therefore, learned Single Judge
was justified in arriving at a conclusion to allow the writ petition
to set aside the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the
Deputy Commissioner.
6.2. No error could be booked in the judgment and order
of learned Single Judge.
7. The appeal is merit less and is dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:2942-DB
In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory
applications, as may be pending, would not survive and they
stand accordingly disposed of.
SD/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
SD/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
VM
