Karnataka High Court
Mr. H R Suresh vs State Of Karnataka on 24 January, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
WP No. 13200 of 2023
C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023
WP No. 13239 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
®
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 13200 OF 2023
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 13192 OF 2023
WRIT PETITION NO. 13239 OF 2023 (SCST)
IN W.P.No. 13200 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
1 . MR. H R SURESH
S/O LATE H.K. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT 'SHRESTA'
NO. 1, JAKKUR MAIN ROAD
JAKKUR POST
BENGALURU - 560 064
Digitally ...PETITIONER
signed by (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
KIRAN
KUMAR R SRI. SANJAY KRIHSNA.V., ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
MULTISTORIED BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU 560 001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
WP No. 13200 of 2023
C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023
WP No. 13239 of 2023
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH DIVISION
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 009.
4. TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK
TALUK OFFICE, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU - 560 064.
5. MR. A.J. JAMES
S/O A.C.JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 576, 4TH CROSS,
HMT LAYOUT R.T.NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 032.
6. MRS. ANCY JAMES
W/O A.J. JAMES
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 576,
4TH CROSS, HMT LAYOUT,
R.T. NGAR
BENGALURU - 560 032.
7. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
W/O LATE B.M. GOVINDRARAJU
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
8. SRI.BHASKAR
S/O LATE B.M. GOVINDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
9. SRI. SHASHIDHAR (A.K.A.B.G KUMAR)
S/O LATE B.M.GOVINDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
WP No. 13200 of 2023
C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023
WP No. 13239 of 2023
10 . SRI.B.M. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O SRI. B.H. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
11 . SMT. M.N. KUSUMA
D/O SRI. B.M. NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
12 . SRI. B.N. MOHAN KUMAR
S/O SRI. B.M. NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R-7 TO 12 ALL ARE RESIDING AT
BETTAHALASURU VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI,
YELAHANKA NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562157.
13 . SMT. GOWRAMMA
D/O LATE KORAMARA VENKATAMMA
W/O D.N. LAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
RESIDING AT. NO. 127, 2ND FLOOR
KEMPANNA BUILDING
NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.
14 . KUM. ASHWINI
D/O LATE NARAYANAMMA AND
HANUMANTHAPPA AND
GRANDDAUGHTER OF
SMT. BYLAMMA AND LATE RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT KAKOLU VILLAGE,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560089.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
WP No. 13200 of 2023
C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023
WP No. 13239 of 2023
15 . KUM. MANJI
D/O LATE NARAYANAMMA AND
HANUMANTHAPPA
GRANDDAUGHTER OF SMT. BYLAMMA AND
LATE RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT.
KAKOLU VILLAGE,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560089.
16 . SMT. NANJAMMA
D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY AND BYLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT KAKOLU VILLAGE,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560089.
17 . SMT. MEENA
D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY AND BYLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT KAKOLU VILLAGE,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560089.
18 . SMT. SARITA
D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY AND BYLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT KAKOLU VILLAGE,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560089.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA, FOR R-1 TO R-4;
SRI.A.J.JAMES, R-5 (PARTY IN PERSON) AND ALSO FOR
R-6;
SRI. PRABHUGOUD B THUMBIGI, ADVOCATE FOR
R-7 TO R-9;
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
SRI. ESWARA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R-10 TO 12;
SRI. S.T.JUNJAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R-13 TO 18)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 22.05.2023, PASSED BY
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THE R-2 HEREIN IN PTCL
53/2022, PTCL 54/2022 AND PTCL 61/2022, SETTING ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 HEREIN
DATED:21.02.2019 IN KSC.ST.(BNA)44/2011-12 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A, ETC.
IN W.P.No. 13192 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
1 . MR. H R SURESH
S/O LATE H.K. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT. SHRESTA
NO. 1, JAKKUR MAIN ROAD
JAKKUR POST
BENGALURU - 560 064
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SANJAY KRISHNA.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
MULTISTORIED BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU 560 001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH DIVISION
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 009.
4. TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK
TALUK OFFICE, YELAHANKA
BANGALURU - 560 064.
5. MR.A.J. JAMES
S/O A.C. JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT
NO. 576, 4TH CROSS,
HMT LAYOUT, R.T.NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560032.
6. MRS.ANCY JAMES
W/O A.J.JAMES
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
NO. 576, 4TH CROSS,
HMT LAYOUT, R.T.NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 032.
7. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
W/O LATE B.M. GOVINDRARAJU
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
8. SRI. BHASKAR
S/O LATE B.M. GOVINDRARAJU
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
9. SRI. B.G.KUMAR
S/O LATE B.M. GOVINDRARAJU
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R-7 TO 9 ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
BETTAHALASURU VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI,
YELAHANKA NORTH (ADDL.)TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 089.
10 . SMT. GOWRAMMA
D/O LATE KORAMARA VENKATAMMA
W/O D.N.LAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
RESIDING AT . NO.127, 2ND FLOOR
KEMPANNA BUILDING
NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064
11 . KUM. ASHWINI
D/O LATE NARAYANAMMA AND
HANUMANTHAPPA AND
GRANDDAUGHTER OF SMT. BYLAMMA AND
LATE RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 25 YERS
12 . KUM. MANJI
D/O LATE NARAYANAMMA AND
HANUMANTHAPPA AND
GRANDDAUGHTER OF SMT. BYLAMMA AND
LATE RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 23 YERS
13 . SMT.NANJAMMA
D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY AND BYLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
14 . SMT. MEENA
D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY AND BYLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
15 . SMT. SARITA
D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY AND BYLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
R-11 TO R-15 ALL ARE RESIDING AT
KAKOLU VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
16 . SRI. B.M. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O SRI. B.H.MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
17 . SMT. M.N.KUSUMA
D/O SRI. B.H.MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
18 . SRI. B.N. MOHAN KUMAR
S/O SRI.B.M. NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R-16 TO 18 ARE RESIDING AT
BETTAHALASURU VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI,
YELAHANKA NHORTH (ADDL.) TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 089.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 TO 4;
SRI. A.J.JAMES, R-5 (PARTY IN PERSON) & ALSO FORR-6;
SRI.PRABHUGOUD B.THUMBIGI, ADVOCATE FOR R-7TO 9;
SRI. S.T.JUNJAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R-10 TO 15;
SRI. ESWARA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R-16 TO 18)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 22.05.2023
PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THE 2ND
RESPONDENT HEREIN IN PTCL 53/2022, PTCL 54/2022 AND
PTCL 61/2022, SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN DATED:21.02.2019 IN KSC ST (BNA)
44/2011-12 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ETC.
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
IN W.P.No. 13239 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
1 . MR. H R SURESH
S/O LATE H.K. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING ATN. 'SHRESTA'
NO. 1, JAKKUR MAIN ROAD
JAKKUR POST
BENGALURU - 560 064
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.SANJAY KRISHNA.V.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
MULTISTORIED BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU 560 001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH DIVISION
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 009.
4. TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK
TALUK OFFICE, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU - 560 064.
5. MR. A.J. JAMES
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
S/O A.C.JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 576,
4TH CROSS,
HMT LAYOUT R.T.NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 032.
6. MRS. ANCY JAMES
W/O A.J. JAMES
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 576,
4TH CROSS,
HMT LAYOUT, R.T. NGAR
BENGALURU - 560 032.
7. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
W/O LATE B.M. GOVINDRARAJU
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
8. SRI.BHASKAR
S/O LATE B.M. GOVINDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
9. SRI. SHASHIDHAR (A.K.A.B.G KUMAR)
S/O LATE B.M.GOVINDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
10 . SRI.B.M. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O SRI. B.H. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
11 . SMT. M.N. KUSUMA
D/O SRI. B.M. NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
12 . SRI. B.N. MOHAN KUMAR
S/O SRI. B.M. NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R-7 TO 12 ALL ARE RESIDING AT
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
BETTAHALASURU VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562157.
13 . SMT. GOWRAMMA
D/O LATE KORAMARA VENKATAMMA
W/O D.N. LAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
RESIDING AT. NO. 127, 2NDFLOOR
KEMPANNA BUILDING
NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.
14 . KUM. ASHWINI
D/O LATE NARAYANAMMA AND
HANUMANTHAPPA AND
GRANDDAUGHTER OF
SMT. BYLAMMA AND LATE RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT KAKOLU VILLAGE,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560089.
15 . KUM. MANJI
D/O LATE NARAYANAMMA AND
HANUMANTHAPPA
GRANDDAUGHTER OF SMT. BYLAMMA AND
LATE RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT.
KAKOLU VILLAGE,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560089.
16 . SMT. NANJAMMA
D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY AND BYLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT KAKOLU VILLAGE,
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560089.
17 . SMT. MEENA
D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY AND BYLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT KAKOLU VILLAGE,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560089.
18 . SMT. SARITA
D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY AND BYLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT KAKOLU VILLAGE,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560089.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA, FOR R-1 TO R-4;
SRI.A.J.JAMES, R-5 (PARTY IN PERSON) AND R-6;
SRI. PRABHUGOUD B THUMBIGI, ADVOCATE FOR
R-7 TO R-9;
SRI. ESWARA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R-10 TO 12;
SRI. S.T.JUNJAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R-13 TO 18)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 22.05.2023 PASSED BY
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN
IN PTCL 53/2022, PTCL 54/2022 AND PTCL 61/2022, SETTING
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN
DATED 21.02.2019 IN KSC ST (BNA) 44/2011-12 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A, ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 19.12.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CAV ORDER
Table of Contents
I. Chronology of facts ascertained from the pleadings,
submissions and records..................................................................................... 13
II. Contentions..................................................................................................... 42
III. Points for consideration: ............................................................................. 46
IV. Re: the 1st point ............................................................................................. 47
V. Re: the 2nd, 3rd and 4th points -- applicability of the PTCL
Act to the lands in question ............................................................................... 60
I. CHRONOLOGY OF FACTS ASCERTAINED FROM THE
PLEADINGS, SUBMISSIONS AND RECORDS:
1. On 11.04.1942, the then General and Revenue
Department of the Government of Mysore, issued an
order in the background of the fact that there was a
shortage in the production of food and fodder. In
order to incentivise and increase the production, it
was decided to put the unoccupied irrigateable
lands, which had not been put to cultivation, to use
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
by permitting the Deputy Commissioner to lease
them out for a period of not exceeding three years,
with concession in the payment of assessment to
facilitate temporary cultivation of paddy. The order
also stated that the persons who would bring the
lands under cultivation would also have the option of
purchasing the lands for a reasonable upset price at
the end of the period of lease.
2. On 13.06.1942, i.e., about two months from the
aforementioned order, the Government issued
another order, taking note of the fact that the
farmers were not enthused about the prospect of
taking the lands on lease only for three years and in
making considerable investments, since they
apprehended that they would be called upon to pay
an upset price on the basis of the improvements
that they had made to the land. By this order, the
Government made it clear that the upset price to be
fixed would not exceed the market value of the land
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
at the time it had been given out for cultivation and
if possible, the upset price should be intimated to
them, in advance i.e., when permission was granted
to them to cultivate the lands.
3. On 30.06.1942 i.e., within about 17 days of the
aforementioned order, the Government issued
another order sanctioning further concessions in the
matter of tenure of the lease and payment of
assessment. The Government decided to grant
tenure of five years for the lease and stated that the
first two years would be free of assessment, the
third and fourth years would be half assessment and
the fifth year would be full assessment.
4. On the basis of these orders, lands to the extents
ranging from 06 acres to 02 acres in land bearing
Sy.No.259 were permitted to be cultivated by 25
persons from the years ranging from 1942-43 to
1951-52, as could be gathered from document No.3
to the affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, Yelahanka
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
dated 16.12.2024. In this document, the following
entries, which would be relevant for these cases, are
extracted as under:
zÀgÀ MlÄÖ
zÀgÀSÁ¸ÀÄÛ ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ «¹ÛÃtð ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ ¸ÀܼÀ
PÀļÀUÀ¼À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ¸Á®Ä
*** *** *** ***
17. DAd£À¥Àà 2-0 51-52
*** *** *** ***
22. PÉÆgÀªÀÄgÀ ªÉAPÀlªÀÄä 2-0 51-52 ¨ÉlÖºÀ®¸ÀÆgÀÄ
5. As could be seen from the above, both Anjanappa
and Koramara Venkatamma were permitted to
cultivate an extent of 02 acres each in Sy.No.259
from the year 1951-52.
6. The sketch enclosed with this affidavit and a colour
photocopy, which is filed along with another affidavit
dated 18.12.2024, state that a total extent of 82
acres in Sy.No.259 was the subject matter of grants
under the Grow More Food Scheme (i.e., under the
above-mentioned three Government Orders) [for
short, "the GMF Scheme"] and an extent of 04
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
acres was the subject matter of grants to depressed
classes.
7. In this sketch also, Sy.No.259/18 is shown to be
granted to Anjanappa and Sy.No.259/22 is shown to
be granted to Koramara Venkatamma. The location
of the lands with reference to their serial numbers
i.e., Nos.18 and 22 are also demarcated in the
sketch. Sl.No.22 is located on the northern-most
portion of Sy.No.259 while Sl.No.18 is located on the
southernmost portion of Sy.No.259, which
establishes that they are different parcels of land.
8. The affidavit of the Tahsildar also states that an
extent of 02 acres in Sy.No.259 at Sl.No.22 was
granted to Koramara Venkatamma under the order
No.LND.SR.(3)-310/60-61 dated 21.05.1961. The
order of confirmation is also enclosed as document
No.2.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
9. The affidavit also goes on to state that an extent of
02 acres in Sy.No.259 at Sl.No.18 was confirmed in
favour of Anjanappa under the GMF Scheme under
order No.LND.SR(2)-225/60-61 dated 21.01.1966.
The copy of the Official Memorandum is also
enclosed as document No 3.
10. This affidavit establishes that the grant made under
the GMF Scheme was confirmed in favour of
Koramara Venkatamma in 1961, while the grant in
favour of Anjanappa was confirmed five years
thereafter in 1966.
11. The copy of the receipts for having paid the land
revenue by Koramara Venkatamma for the years
1954, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1960 and 1961 are also
produced by A.J.James and Ancy James along with
their memo dated 13.02.2024 which enclosed the
records that they had produced in W.A. No.267 of
2020.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
12. This sketch enclosed to the affidavit also states that
Sy.No.259 was a Gomal land, whose total extent
was 225 acres 16 guntas, out of which 125 acres
had been granted.
13. On 05.04.1967, Koramara Venkatamma (described
as daughter of Koramara Krishnappa) sold 02 acres
of land that had been confirmed in her favour to
B.G.Muniyappa under a registered sale deed for a
sale consideration of Rs.400/-. Pursuant to the sale
deed, the revenue entries were also mutated in
favour of B.G.Muniyappa under M.R.No.6/1967-68
and the RTCs also reflect his name till 1995-96 in
respect of Sy.No.259/22.
14. In the year 1995-96, the revenue entries were
mutated vide M.R.No.52/1995-96 by which the
names of B.G.Muniyappa's sons (with his second
wife) i.e., B.M.Govindaraju and B.M.Narayanaswamy
were entered in the revenue records in respect of
Sy.No.259 on the basis of an oral partition reported
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
to the authorities and the names of B.M.Govindaraju
and B.M.Narayanaswamy were entered in the RTCs
in respect of Sy.No.259/22.
15. On 16.09.2006, B.M.Narayanaswamy and his children
executed a sale deed in favour of A.J.James and his
wife Ancy James in respect of 1 acre in
Sy.No.259/22 i.e., the northern portion of
Sy.No.259/22 for a sale consideration of Rs.22.05
lakhs. The revenue entries were also mutated in
respect of Sy.No.259/22 vide M.R.No.213/2006-07
in favour of A.J.James and Ancy James and their
names were also reflected in the RTCs.
16. The southern portion of 01 acre was retained by
B.M.Govindaraju, the other son of B.G.Muniyappa.
17. A.J.James, thereafter sought durasthi and phodi of
the land that he had purchased and it was noticed
that the original records pertaining to the grant in
favour of Koramara Venkatamma were unavailable
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
and hence, proceedings were initiated under Section
67(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964
("the KLR Act"), which ultimately culminated in an
order dated 31.07.2008 by the Assistant
Commissioner, under which he ordered a durasthi
and phodi of the land purchased by A.J.James and
his wife.
18. The land purchased by A.J.James was thereafter
assigned Sy.No.376 and the revenue entries were
also mutated vide M.R.No.92/2008-09.
19. On 21.09.2008, the Tahsildar submitted a report to
the Special Deputy Commissioner to the effect that
the names of B.M.Govindaraju, B.M.Narayanaswamy,
A.J.James and Ancy James had been entered in the
RTC without any legal basis and requested for
proceedings under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act to
be initiated.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
20. On 12.06.2009, A.J.James and his wife sought
permission of the Deputy Commissioner to use the
agricultural land that they had purchased for non-
agricultural purpose i.e., for non-residential use
(educational purpose). This application was
processed and the Tahsildar also recommended for
the permission to be granted. Incidentally, while
processing the application, the Tahsildar had noted
that the land did not come within the purview of the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978
(for short, 'the PTCL Act').
21. The Deputy Commissioner, after conducting an
enquiry, by his order dated 06.01.2011 came to the
conclusion that the entries made in favour of
A.J.James and his wife under M.R.No.213/2006-07
were improper and directed the cancellation of the
same, and also directed the taking over of
possession of the land.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
22. This order of the Deputy Commissioner was
challenged by A.J.James and his wife before this
Court in W.P.No.46071 of 2011 and W.P. No.1697 of
2012 and this Court on 02.09.2014, set aside the
order of the Deputy Commissioner after observing
that the records relating to the grant of
Sy.No.259/22 were available and they had been
obtained by A.J.James under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 and directed the Deputy
Commissioner to consider the original records and
pass orders afresh.
23. The Deputy Commissioner, instead of considering the
matter afresh, proceeded to direct the Tahsildar to
hold an enquiry, which resulted in filing of W.P.
Nos.43826-27 of 2015 and this Court by an order
dated 23.11.2015 quashed the order of the Special
Deputy Commissioner and directed him to conduct
an enquiry as ordered earlier in W.P.No.46071 of
2011.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
24. The Deputy Commissioner, thereafter, proceeded to
pass an order on 30.01.2016 dropping the
proceedings under Section 136(3) of the KLR ACT
since the records did indicate that the land had been
granted to Koramara Venkatamma and also directed
the Tahsildar to continue the entry in respect of
Sy.No.376 (Old Sy.No.259/22) in favour of A.J.James
and Ancy James.
25. In this order, he also recorded that the land had been
granted to Koramara Venkatamma under the GMF
scheme, and the grant had been confirmed on
payment of an upset price. He also recorded that
there was no prohibition for alienation of a land
granted under the GMF scheme and the alienation
made by Koramara Venkatamma to B.G.Muniyappa
was valid, and A.J.James and Ancy James had
purchased this land under a registered sale deed
dated 16.09.2006 from the sons of B.G.Muniyappa.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
26. During the pendency of these proceedings relating to
the phodi and the claim of the Tahsildar that there
were no records of grant of the property, on
25.08.2011, (i.e., about seven months after the
Deputy Commissioner had cancelled the mutation
made in favour of A.J.James and Ancy James on
06.01.2011), Gowramma and Bylamma--the
daughter and widowed daughter-in-law of
Anjanappa respectively, invoked the provisions of
the PTCL Act and made an application to the
Assistant Commissioner requesting him to declare
the sale deed dated 05.04.1967 executed by
Koramara Venkatamma in favour of B.G.Muniyappa
as null and void and to resume the land in their
favour.
27. In this application, they categorically stated as
follows:
"3. The petitioners submit that, the
land bearing Old Survey No.259, Later
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
Survey No.259/22 and now bearing New
Survey No.376, measuring 2-00 acres,
situated at Bettahalasuru Village, Jala
Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, now Bangalore
North (Additional) Taluk, Yelahanka, was
granted in favour of Sri.Anjanappa, the
father of the 1st petitioner and father-in-
law of the 2nd petitioner by way of
Dharkhast by the order of the Deputy
Commissioner bearing
No.B.Dis.LND.SR.2-225/60-61, dated
20.01.1966, and the grant certificate was
issued by the Amildar, Devanahalli Taluk,
dated 23.05.1966 and Saguvali chit was
issued with a condition that, the subject
lands should not be alienated without the
prior permission of the government. The
copy of the grant certificate is produced
herewith and marked as DOCUMENT
No.3.
4. The petitioners submit that, after
the grant Anjanappa, was in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the said
lands by getting the Khatha and other
revenue records mutated to his name and
died intestate leaving behind his wife
Koramara Venkatamma and the
petitioners herein to succeed over his
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
estates. That, after the death of
Anjanappa, his wife Koramara
Venkatamma got the Khatha and other
revenue records mutated to her name.
5. The petitioners submit that the said
Venkatamma, due to lack of knowledge
and poverty has sold the subject land in
favour of one Sri.B.G.Muniyappa, the
father of the 4th respondent and father-
in-law of the 1st respondent and grand-
father of the 2nd and 3rd respondents, in
violation of the PTCL Act, under the sale
deed dated 05.04.1967, registered as
No.43/67-68, pages 166-167 Volume
977, Book I, in the office of the Sub-
Registrar, at Devanahalli. The copy of the
sale deed is produced herewith and
marked as DOCUMENT No.3. The said
sale is without the prior permission of the
Government and hence, the very purpose
of the grant has been violated.
6. The petitioners submit that,
subsequently the 1st and deceased
B.M.Govindaraju and 4th respondent
appears to have orally partitioned the
subject lands and thereafter, the 4th, 5th
and 6th respondents have arbitrarily,
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
unlawfully and clandestinely sold an
extent of 1-00 acre in favour of the 7th
and 8th respondents under the sale deed
dated 16.09.2006, registered as No.YAN-
1-15374-2006-07, stored in C.D.
No.YAND 231, in the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Yelahanka, Bangalore, which is
also in total violation of the PTCL Act. The
copy of the sale deed is produced
herewith and marked as DOCUMENT
No.4.
7. The petitioners submit that, after
purchase of the lands, the Khatha of the
subject land is standing in the name of
B.M.Govindaraju and
B.M.Narayanaswamy, to an extent of 1-
00 acre and another extent of 1-00 acre
is mutated in favour of 7th and 8th
respondents vide M.R.No.92/2008-2009
dated 29.05.2009. The copy of the
mutation register extract is produced
herewith and marked as DOCUMENT
NO.5. The copy of the RTC Extract is
produced herewith and marked as
DOCUMENT NO.6."
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
28. As could be seen from the above, they claimed that
the land that had been granted to Anjanappa and
was confirmed in his favour on 20.01.1966, had
been sold by his wife Koramara Venkatamma after
his death. Thus, they pleaded that Koramara
Venkatamma was the wife of Anjanappa and that
she had succeeded to the property granted to
Anjanappa, on his death. In other words, they did
not contend that the land granted to Koramara
Venkatamma had been sold, but the land granted to
Anjanappa had been sold by Koramara
Venkatamma.
29. In these proceedings, both the widow and children of
B.M.Govindaraju, B.M.Narayanaswamy and his
children and also A.J.James and Ancy James were
arrayed as respondents, but it appears that they did
not appear despite notices being served.
30. The Assistant Commissioner proceeded to pass an
order on 02.09.2014, accepting the claim of
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
Gowramma and Bylamma and declared the sale
deed dated 05.04.1967 executed by Koramara
Venkatamma and also the sale deed dated
16.09.2006 executed by B.M.Narayanaswamy and
his children as null and void, and ordered for
restoration of the lands in favour of Gowramma and
Bylamma.
31. Pursuant to this order, their names were also
mutated into the revenue records within 2 months
on 07.11.2014 vide M.R.No.29/2014-15.
32. This order was challenged by A.J. James and Ancy
James in 2016 by preferring an appeal to the Deputy
Commissioner contending that they had no notice of
the resumption proceedings.
33. However, in the interregnum, on 02.03.2015, i.e.,
about 6 months of the order of resumption passed
by the Assistant Commissioner, Gowramma and
Bylamma made an application seeking permission to
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
alienate the land that had been ordered to be
restored to their favour.
34. It may be pertinent to state here that pursuant to the
order of the Assistant Commissioner dated
02.09.2014 directing resumption of the lands, no
proceedings to resume the land and to hand over
possession to Gowramma and Bylamma were sought
to be initiated by them nor were any steps taken by
the authorities to actually resume the lands which is
confirmed by the affidavit that has been filed by the
Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-
Division dated 17.12.2024.
35. In other words, even without taking possession of
the lands which were ordered to be resumed in their
favour, Gowramma and Bylamma had sought
permission to sell the land, which was ordered to be
resumed in their favour.
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
36. The request of Gowramma and Bylamma was
processed by the authorities and the Deputy
Commissioner, in his recommendation dated
05.09.2015 to the Government, stated as follows:
"¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ (C¥ÀgÀ) vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ,
eÁ¯Á ºÉÆç½, ¨ÉlÖºÀ®¸ÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð
£ÀA.259/22 (ºÉƸÀ ¸À.£ÀA.376) gÀ°è 2-00 JPÀgÉ
«¹ÛÃtðzÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw/¥Àj²µÀÖ ¥ÀAUÀqÀzÀ
(PÉ®ªÀÅ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À ¥ÀgÀ¨sÁgÉ ¤µÉÃzÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ) 1978 gÀ
PÀ®A 4(2)gÀr ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw PÉÆÃj
²æêÀÄw UËgÀªÀÄä ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï CAf£À¥Àà, ²æêÀÄw ¨ÉÊ®ªÀÄä
PÉÆÃA ¯ÉÃmï gÁªÀĪÀÄÆwðgÀªÀgÀÄ G¯ÉèÃR(5)gÀAvÉ Cfð
¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, EªÀgÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw (PÉÆÃgÀªÀÄ) d£ÁAUÀPÉÌ
¸ÉÃjzÀªÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.259gÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®vÀB ¸ÀPÁðj
UÉÆêÀiÁ¼ÀzÀ d«ÄãÁVzÀÄÝ, F d«ÄãÀÄ DAf£À¥Àà
gÀªÀjUÉ F PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ C¢üPÀÈvÀ eÁÕ¥À£À
¸ÀASÉå:©r¸ï/J¯ïJ£ïr/J¸ïDgï/2-225/1960-61 gÀAvÉ
ªÀÄAdÆjAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ªÀÄAdÆj ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è£À µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼À
CªÀ¢üAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄÄV¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄAdÆjzÁgÀgÀÄ
¥ÀªÀwAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀÄ PÀæAiÀÄ «PÀæAiÀÄUÀ¼À
ªÀ»ªÁlÄ £ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ, ¦n¹J¯ï PÁAiÉÄÝ
G®èAWÀ£ÉAiÀiÁVzÀÝgÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ G¥À «¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ,
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ G¥À «¨sÁUÀ gÀªÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ
¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ¸ÀASÉå:PÉ.J¸ï¹/J¹Ö/44/2011-12 gÀAvÉ «ZÁgÀuÉ
£ÀqÉzÀÄ ¢:02.09.2014 gÀAzÀÄ CAwªÀÄ DzÉñÀªÁVzÀÄÝ
¸ÀzÀj DzÉñÀzÀ°è ªÀÄAdÆjzÁgÀgÀ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ 2-00
JPÀgÉ d«Ää£À ºÀPÀÄÌ ¥ÀÄ£Àgï ¸Áܦ¸À®Ä DzÉñÀªÁzÀAvÉ
JA.Dgï.ºÉZï.29/2014-15 ¢:07.11.2014 gÀAvÉ SÁvÉ
zÁR¯ÁV ºÁ° ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄ°èAiÀÄÆ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ
ºÁUÀÆ ¥Àæ²ßvÀ d«Ää£À°è CfðzÁgÀgÉÃ
¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀ°ègÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
¸À.£ÀA.259/22gÀ°è 2-00 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß
¸ÀASÉå:lPÀÆå/©J£ï(J)r¦Dgï/16/2008-09gÀ
DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ ¥ÉÆÃr zÀÄgÀ¹ÛAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÉƸÀ
¸À.£ÀA.376 JAzÀÄ DVzÀÄÝ, ºÁ°Ã ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄ°èAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ
£ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."
* * *
DzÀÝjAz,À G¥À «¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
GvÀÛgÀ G¥À «¨sÁUÀ gÀªÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ºÁUÀÆ vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ (C¥ÀgÀ) vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀܼÀ vÀ¤SÁ
ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹, CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ
(C¥ÀgÀ) vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, eÁ¯Á ºÉÆç½, ¨ÉlÖºÀ®¸ÀÆgÀÄ
UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.259/22 (ºÉƸÀ ¸À.£ÀA.376) gÀ°è 2-
00 JPÀgÉ «¹ÛÃtðzÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÀgÀ²¸ÀÖ eÁw/¥Àj²µÀÖ ¥ÀAUÀqÀzÀ (PÉ®ªÀÅ
d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À ¥ÀgÀ¨sÁgÉ ¤µÉÃzÀ) PÁAiÉÄÝ 1978 gÀ PÀ®A
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
4(2)gÀAvÉ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃqÀ®Ä «²µÀÖ PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä
CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ ¸À°è¹zÉ."
37. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner informed the
Government that Gowramma and Bylamma were in
possession of the land though they themselves had
stated in their applications filed in the year 2011
that the land was required to be restored to their
favour.
38. As already noticed above, despite the order of
resumption, no proceedings had been initiated to
recover possession from B.M.Govindaraju and
A.J.James and Ancy James, who were admittedly in
possession of the land.
39. The Government, ultimately, accepted the
recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner and
by an order dated 23.09.2015 accorded permission
to them to sell the land. On the basis of this
permission dated 05.09.2015, the Deputy
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
Commissioner issued an Official Memorandum dated
23.09.2015 intimating the factum of the permission
accorded under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act by the
Government.
40. On the basis of this permission, Gowramma and
Bylamma proceeded to execute a sale deed on
14.10.2015 in favour of H.R. Suresh.
41. Thus, while A.J. James and Ancy James were fighting
a battle before the Deputy Commissioner regarding
the initiation of proceedings under Section 136(3) of
the KLR Act, an ex parte order of resumption had
been passed against them and thereafter, the
Government had also accorded permission to
Gowramma and Bylamma to sell the land and they
had also sold the land to H.R. Suresh even though
possession was not taken of the land ordered to be
resumed in favour of Gowramma and Bylamma.
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
42. As stated above, A.J.James and Ancy James
preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner in
2016 challenging the order of resumption that had
been passed by the Assistant Commissioner. In this
appeal, H.R.Suresh--the purchaser was impleaded
as a respondent. The Deputy Commissioner, by an
order dated 02.05.2018, allowed the appeal and
remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner
for reconsideration.
43. H.R. Suresh--the purchaser of the land, during this
period proceeded to file a suit in O.S. No.25746 of
2018 against the children of B.G.Muniyappa,
A.J.James and his wife, and B.M.Narayanaswamy
and his family members and in this suit, the Trial
Court granted him an order of temporary injunction
in respect of Sy.No.376 (Old Sy.No.259).
44. In the remanded proceeding, H.R.Suresh was also
impleaded as respondent No.9. The Assistant
Commissioner after consideration of the matter,
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
proceeded to pass an order dated 21.02.2019
holding that the land had been granted to Anjanappa
and had been transferred in contravention of the
terms of the grant and the land was therefore
required to be resumed.
45. It may be pertinent to state here that the order of
remand was challenged by A.J.James and Ancy
James along with the wife and children of
B.M.Govindaraju before this Court in
W.P. Nos.8401-02 of 2019 and this Court by an
order dated 13.12.2019 held that the Assistant
Commissioner had, during the pendency of the writ
petition, already disposed of the application and the
petition would therefore not survive for
consideration, and that the petitioners had to avail
the remedy of filing an appeal to the Deputy
Commissioner.
46. A writ appeal in W.A.No.267 of 2020 was also
preferred against this order, but the Division Bench
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
concluded that an appeal had to be preferred to the
Deputy Commissioner and since the writ appeal was
being prosecuted, it permitted the appellants to
prefer an appeal within 30 days from the date of the
order.
47. Pursuant to the above orders, A.J.James and his wife
Ancy James along with the wife and children of
B.M.Govindaraju preferred an appeal to the Deputy
Commissioner. In this appeal, the purchaser
H.R.Suresh was arrayed as respondent No.5.
48. The Deputy Commissioner, after hearing, passed the
order dated 22.05.2023, which is impugned in this
writ petition, and allowed the appeal and set aside
the order of resumption. The Deputy Commissioner
held that the proceedings for resumption had been
initiated 44 years after the grant and could not
therefore be entertained. He also held that since the
lands had been granted under the GMF Scheme, the
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
land could not be considered as a granted land as
defined under the PTCL Act.
49. Being aggrieved by this order reversing the order of
resumption, these writ petitions are filed by H.R.
Suresh.
50. There is yet another proceeding which will have to be
noticed since it would also have a bearing on this
case.
51. A.J.James and G.B.Bhaskar (son of B.M.Govindaraju)
had lodged several complaints to the Government
commencing from 22.10.2019 up to 14.12.2022,
complaining of the illegalities committed in the grant
of permission to Gowramma and Bylamma to sell
the land.
52. The Government, in turn, directed the Regional
Commissioner to examine the complaints and
submit his considered opinion. The Regional
Commissioner, in turn, called for a report from the
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
Deputy Commissioner, and the Deputy
Commissioner submitted a report dated 06.07.2023
to the Regional Commissioner. In this report, he
stated that there had been lapses in the grant of
permission under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act
inasmuch as the proceedings that had been initiated
under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act and those
proceedings were ultimately dropped after noticing
that there was indeed a grant in favour of Koramara
Venkatamma, which had not been taken note of
before considering the application. He also observed
that the illegalities committed by the officials had
resulted in severe prejudice to A.J.James and
G.B.Bhaskar.
53. The Regional Commissioner accepted this report and
proceeded to submit a report dated 13.11.2023 to
the Government stating that the purchase made by
A.J.James had been upheld by the Deputy
Commissioner in Section 136(3) proceedings and,
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
therefore, the order of the Assistant Commissioner
in resuming the lands was incorrect.
54. It may also be noticed here that H.R.Suresh was
served with a notice dated 10.04.2023 in which it
was stated that a survey was required to be
conducted and H.R. Suresh proceeded to challenge
the same by filing W.P. No.10634 of 2023 before this
Court. This Court entertained this petition and
directed the parties to maintain status quo and this
petition is pending consideration.
55. It may also be pertinent to state here that A.J.James
has made an application in this writ petition on
19.10.2024 seeking restitution. In this application, it
is stated that he has made a claim for payment of
damages to the extent of Rs.67.49 lakhs for the
damage caused to his farmhouse, which was not
considered by the authorities. It was contended by
him that the farmhouse was destroyed by H.R.
Suresh when he tried to enter into the property on
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
the basis of the sale deed and he is therefore
entitled to be restituted and also be compensated.
II. CONTENTIONS:
56. Sri. Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri. Sanjay Krishna, raised
the following contentions:
i. The Deputy Commissioner could not have reversed
the order of resumption on the ground of delay and
laches in light of the amendment made to the PTCL
Act in 2023.
ii. The Deputy Commissioner could not have reversed
the order of resumption when the Government had
accorded permission for selling the land on it being
resumed and the petitioner had lawfully purchased
the land on the strength of the permission.
iii. The Deputy Commissioner could not have come to
the conclusion that the sale was valid when it was
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
clear that the grant carried a condition of non-
alienation and yet, the land had been sold by
Koramara Venkatamma.
iv. The lands in question were 'granted land' as defined
under the PTCL Act and even if it had been granted
under the GMF Scheme, nevertheless, the provisions
of the PTCL Act would apply.
v. The order of the Deputy Commissioner -- holding
that the invocation of the PTCL Act was belated and
hence illegal --cannot be accepted in light of the
amendment made to the PTCL Act, which expressly
stated that a proceeding cannot be avoided on the
ground of limitation.
57. Sri. Prabhugoud Tumbigi, learned counsel appearing
for the wife and children of B.M.Govindaraju, and
A.J.James (who argued in person) made their
submissions on the following lines:
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
(i) The entire resumption proceedings initiated were
completely misconceived since the applicants
wanted the land said to have been granted to
Anjanappa to be resumed but they had diabolically
targeted the grant made to Koramara Venkatamma
and the authorities, without examining this vital
and key aspect of the matter, have held that the
land granted to Anjanappa had been alienated in
contravention of the terms of the grant.
(ii) The authorities failed to notice that Anjanappa was
granted 02 acres at Sl.No.18 in Sy.No.259, while
Koramara Venkatamma had been granted 02 acres
at Sl.No.22 in Sy.No.259.These two grants were
completely different parcels of land and hence, the
claim for Anjanappa's lands could not have resulted
in Koramara Venkatamma's land to be resumed.
(iii) The authorities failed to notice that Koramara
Venkatamma was not the wife of Anjanappa and in
the undisputed documents, she was identified as
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
being the daughter of Koramara Krishnappa and
hence, the entire basis of the applicants for
resumption, on the premise that she was the wife
of Anjanappa who had sold the land granted to
him, was misplaced and contrived.
(iv) The Deputy Commissioner was justified in
reversing the order of resumption since,
admittedly, the lands were granted under the GMF
Scheme and hence, the question of invoking the
PTCL Act would not arise.
(v) The Government had absolutely no jurisdiction to
accord permission under Section 4(2) of the Act to
Gowramma and Bylamma to sell the land since the
lands were not resumed and restored to them as
provided under the Act and the purchasers had
always been in possession. Since this permission
accorded was non-est, the consequential sale deed
secured by H.R.Suresh was also null and void.
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
(vi) The Government having created this imbroglio was
required to be saddled with the liability of
reimbursing the damages incurred by them and
H.R.Suresh having chosen to take law into his own
hands, would also have to be penalised equally.
III. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
58. In light of the above, the points that would arise for
consideration in these writ petitions are:
i. Whether the application for
resumption filed by Gowramma and
Bylamma could have been entertained
in respect of the land which had been
granted to Koramara Venakatamma?
ii. Whether the Government could have
accorded permission to Gowramma
and Bylamma to sell the land to H.R.
Suresh without even noticing that the
land had actually not been resumed
and had been restored to them?
iii. Whether the provisions of the PTCL Act
could be invoked in respect of the land
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
which was admittedly a land granted
under the GMF Scheme?
iv. Whether the claim of A.J. James and
his wife for reimbursement of damages
and for restitution can be granted?
IV. RE: THE 1ST POINT:
59. At the outset, it will have to be ascertained whether
the applicants--Gowramma and Bylamma were
seeking resumption of the lands granted to
Anjanappa or not.
60. The learned Additional Government Advocate had not
only produced the original file relating to the grant
but also filed the affidavits of the Tahsildar and the
Assistant Commissioner in this regard.
61. A.J. James has also placed on record the documents
that he had secured under the provisions of the
Right to Information Act, 2005, which also
corroborate the original records.
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
62. The records, especially the sketch annexed to the
affidavit of the Tahsildar dated 16.12.2024,establish
that land bearing Sy.No.259 was originally a Gomal
land measuring about 225 acres 16 guntas and
lands had been granted not only under the GMF
Scheme, but also under the D.D. Rules and under
the Depressed Class Rules.
63. The sketch indicates that out of this Sy.No.259, lands
varying from 06 to 02 acres had been granted to 25
individuals under the GMF Scheme and two persons
have been granted under the Depressed Class Rules
(appears as 02 acres each; however exact extent is
not clearly visible as the document has been torn).
64. In this sketch, at Sl.No.18, it is shown that an extent
of 02 acres had been granted to Anjanappa and at
Sl.No.22 it is shown that an extent of 02 acres had
been granted to Koramara Venkatamma.
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
65. This fact is further corroborated by the extract of
Grant Register (Annexure "D7") produced by
A.J.James in Volume I of the documents produced
by him, which is stated to have been produced in
W.A. No.267 of 2020, wherein the details of the
lands granted have been laid out. This document
also indicates the period from which the persons
mentioned were cultivating. In this document, the
crops grown by them have also been noted and the
name of Anjanappa is shown at Sl.No.18 while the
name of Koramara Venkatamma is shown at
Sl.No.22.
66. A statement showing the details of the lands granted
under the GMF Scheme in Bettahalasur in
Sy.Nos.259 and 198 (not completely visible) has
also been produced as Annexure "D8", in which the
names of 29 people are found. The name of
Anjanappa is shown at Sl. No. 18 and the name of
Koramara Venkatamma is shown at Sl.No.22 and the
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
year from which they have been cultivating is also
shown.
67. He has also produced a statement of the Shanabhog
Subbarayappa (Annexure "D9"), under which the
discrepancy in the number of persons said to have
been granted the land under the GMF Scheme has
been explained.
68. These documents, therefore, leave no room for doubt
that lands in Sy.No.259 were granted to 25 persons
under the GMF Scheme and two bits of lands, both
measuring 2 acres, had been granted to Anjanappa
(at Sl.No.18) and to Koramara Venkatamma (at
Sl.No.22). These documents also indicate that the
grants to Anjanappa and Koramara Venkatamma
were distinct and independent of each other.
69. It may also be pertinent to state here that the sketch
produced by the Tahsildar along with his affidavit
dated 16.12.2024 indicates the location of the lands
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
granted to 27 persons and the serial numbers are
demarcated in the sketch. This would indicate that
the land at Sl.No.22 is situated at the northern
portion, while land at Sl.No.18 is situated in the
southern portion, far away from each other and thus
were not even abutting lands. The relevant potion of
the sketch is extracted hereunder (with Sy.Nos.259/18
and 259/22 shown in circle by me) for ready reference :-
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
70. Apart from these documents, A.J.James has also
produced copy of the representation dated
23.09.1954 given by Bettahalasur Villagers in which
they have made protestations regarding the grant of
lands in Sy.No.259 under the GMF Scheme on the
ground that there would be a shortage of Gomal
lands and requested that these grants may be
cancelled (Annexure "D4"). In this representation, it
has been stated that the lands had been granted to
Koramara Venkatamma and Anjanappa to the extent
of 02 acres each among 32 other people.
71. It must be mentioned here that if Koramara
Venkatamma was the wife of Anjanappa and two
grants had been made to the husband and wife, the
villagers would have definitely highlighted this fact
and would have sought cancellation of these two
grants only on that score, especially when the
protestation is quite detailed in nature.
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
72. In reply to this protestation, a report is given by the
Amaldar to the Sub-Divisional Officer dated
12.10.1955 (a copy is produced at Annexure "D5")
and which has been forwarded to the Deputy
Commissioner, wherein it has been stated that there
was an extent of 237 Acres 27 guntas of land
available for grazing and only 230 acres were
required as the village only had 764 heads of cattle.
He has also stated that the 25 persons who had
been granted the lands under the GMF scheme had
brought the lands granted to them under cultivation.
73. These documents, therefore, conclusively prove that
there was indeed a grant of land to 25 persons in
Bettahalasur village in Sy.No.259 and amongst the
grantees were Anjanappa and Koramara
Venkatamma.
74. Now, coming to the grant in favour of Koramara
Venkatamma, A.J. James has produced the land
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
revenue receipts indicating the fact that assessment
had been paid by her for the years 1954, 1956,
1959, 1960 and 1961 (Annexure "D12"). This would
indicate that Koramara Venkatamma had complied
with the conditions of the grant and had brought the
same under cultivation and had also paid the
assessment.
75. He has also produced the proceedings relating to the
confirmation of grant in favour of Koramara
Venkatamma including the report of the Revenue
Inspector, Jala Hobli which indicates the report which
was sent to the Assistant Commissioner dated
10.05.1961 explaining a discrepancy and seeks
confirmation (Annexure "D10").
76. The records also contain the submission of the
recommendation by the Assistant Commissioner
dated 21.05.1961 to the Deputy Commissioner for
approval of the confirmation, as the granted land
had fulfilled the terms of the grant. A hangami
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
Saguvali chit issued to Koramara Venkatamma is
also produced (Annexure "D2") which states
possession of 2 acres in Sy.No.259 was handed over
to her under the terms of the Government Order
dated 11.04.1942 (the GMF Scheme order).
77. Thus, these documents clearly establish that a land
measuring 2 acres in Sy.No.259 was granted to
Koramara Venkatamma and this was also confirmed
in her favour in 1961.
78. The Tahsildar has also filed an affidavit dated
18.12.2024 stating that the documents available in
the Taluk office clearly established that the land in
Sy.No.259, Sl.No.22 (wrongly typed as Sl.No.23) to
an extent of 02 acres was allotted to Koramara
Venkatamma daughter of Koramara Krishnappa
under the GMF Scheme under order No.LND.SR (3)-
310 / 60-61 dated 21.05.1961 and confirmed on
acceptance of an upset price of Rs.25/- per acre. He
- 56 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
has produced the order of confirmation, which was
produced by A.J.James.
79. He has also gone on to state that the land at
Sl.No.18 in the same Sy.No.259 was allotted to
Anjanappa and 24 others under the GMF Scheme
under order No.LND.SR(2)-225/1960-61 dated
20.01.1966. He has also produced the Office
Memorandum issued by the Deputy Commissioner in
this regard.
80. These documents therefore conclusively establish the
fact that in Sy.No.259, Sl.No.18 was granted to
Anjanappa under the GMF Scheme which was
confirmed in his favour on 20.01.1966 and in the
same Sy.No.259, Sl.No.22 was allotted to Koramara
Venkatamma and confirmed in her favour on
21.05.1961. As already observed above, as per the
sketch, these two lands (both measuring 02 acres)
are situated far apart and are completely different.
- 57 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
81. If there were two grants, one in favour of Anjanappa
and another in favour of Koramara Venkatamma, it
is obvious that they were separate grants and the
authorities could not have blindly proceeded to
accept the plea of Gowramma and Bylamma that the
alienation made by Koramara Venkatamma was
relatable to the land granted to Anjanappa.
82. If Gowramma and Bylamma were seeking
resumption of the land granted to Anjanappa that
would obviously mean that they were interested only
in the land at Sl.No.18 in Sy.No.259 indicated in the
sketch and they could have no right whatsoever to
claim the land that had been granted to Koramara
Venkatamma which was Sy.No.259, Sl.No.22.
83. Unfortunately, they made a patently false claim in
their application for resumption that land bearing
Sy.No.259/22, New Sy.No.376 measuring 02 acres
had been granted to Anjanappa on 20.01.1966.
They, thus, basically sought the land which had been
- 58 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
granted to Koramara Venkatamma, over which
neither they nor Anjanappa had any right.
84. In order to buttress their claim, they conveniently
stated that Koramara Venkatamma was Anjanappa's
wife and had succeeded to the property after his
death and sold it in contravention of the terms of the
grant. They however, produced no document to
establish that Koramara Venkatamma was the wife
of Anjanappa.
85. It is to be stated here that since the fundamental
premise of the claim of Gowramma and Bylamma
was that they were the legal heirs of Anjanappa and
were thus entitled to seek resumption, it is obvious
that they could seek resumption of only the land at
Sl.No.18 in Sy.No.259, and not Sl.No.22 in
Sy.No.259. This simple but vital aspect of the matter
has totally been lost sight by the Assistant
Commissioner.
- 59 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
86. It must also be stated here that Koramara
Venkatamma, in the sale deed dated 05.04.1967,
has categorically stated that she had been granted
the land bearing Sy.No.259 and had been issued a
Saguvali chit on 05.02.1953 under the GMF Scheme.
It must be noticed here that in this sale deed, she
has been described as Venkatamma daughter of
Koramara Krishnappa and she has also been
identified by the Shanabhog Subbarayappa and he
has described her as Venkatamma wife of
Krishnappa. This document, thus, clearly establishes
that Koramara Venkatamma was selling the land
that she had been granted, and this document also
indicates that Venkatamma was the daughter of
Koramara Krishnappa, and the wife of Krishnappa
hence, she could not be the wife of Anjanappa.
87. It is therefore clear that the entire basis of the
initiation of the resumption proceedings by
Gowramma and Bylamma was patently incorrect and
- 60 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
was designed to usurp the property that had been
granted to Koramara Venkatamma, albeit under the
guise of seeking resumption of the land granted to
Anjanappa. The resumption proceedings would
therefore be illegal and would have to be quashed.
V. RE: THE 2ND, 3RD AND 4TH POINTS -- APPLICABILITY OF
THE PTCL ACT TO THE LANDS IN QUESTION:
88. Sri. Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior Counsel
sought to contend that in respect of lands
temporarily granted on lease under the GMF scheme
and subsequently confirmed would also be subject to
the condition of non-alienation for a specified period
and since Anjanappa was a person belonging to the
schedule caste, the provisions of the PTCL Act would
be attracted.
89. He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex
Court in Guntaiah's case1 to contend that the
decision of the Full Bench rendered in
Guntaiah & Ors. v. Hambamma & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 228.
- 61 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
Hambamma's case2 which had approved an earlier
Full Bench decision in Chikka Kullegowda's case3
had been reversed and it had been held that even in
respect of a land which had been leased temporarily,
the period of non-alienation would apply and if they
were breached, the PTCL Act could be invoked.
90. Firstly, this argument, in this case would not apply
since it is already held that a false claim was made
in respect of Koramara Venkatamma's land on the
specious plea that it was the land granted to
Anjanappa. If the land in question was not granted
to Anjanappa, the question of invoking the PTCL Act
would not at all arise.
91. However, since this question has been raised, the
same will have to be considered.
Smt. Hambamma v. State Of Karnataka & Ors., ILR 1999 Kar 261.
Chikka Kullegowda v. the State of Karnataka, ILR 1999 Kar 261.
- 62 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
92. In Siddamma's case4, a Division Bench of this Court
was dealing with a case in which lands had been
allotted under the GMF Scheme and had thereafter
been confirmed and in that context had held that
Rule 43J of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment)
Rules, 1960 which related to grant of lands to
persons to whom lands had been previously leased,
would not make Rule 43G (which imposed a
condition of non-alienation) applicable.
93. This judgment was approved by the Full Bench in
Chikka Kullegowda's case. However, in that case,
the Full Bench was not concerned with a land
granted under the GMF Scheme and was actually
dealing with a case where lands had been
temporarily leased to certain persons belonging to
scheduled castes or scheduled tribes before the
commencement of the Mysore Land Revenue
(Amendment) Rules, 1960 and were subsequently
Siddamma v. Chikkegowda, (1991) KLJ 210.
- 63 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
granted under Rule 43J (paragraph 2 of the
judgment). The Full Bench in that case approved the
ratio laid down by the Division Bench in
Siddamma's case in the context of Rule 43G not
being applicable to a land granted under Rule 43J,
but since this case was not concerning a land
granted under the GMF Scheme, the same can have
no application directly.
94. This decision of the Full Bench was approved by
another Full Bench in Hambamma's case which
held that the period of 15 years non-alienation
cannot be applied for lands granted under Rule 43J.
However, this judgment has been reversed by the
Apex Court in Guntaiah's case and, therefore, the
argument is being advanced that even in respect of
lands granted under the GMF scheme, if the grantee
is a person belonging to the scheduled caste and
scheduled tribe, the PTCL Act would be applicable.
- 64 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
95. It must be noticed here that in Guntaiah's case also,
the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which
lands had been granted to persons belonging to
scheduled castes or scheduled tribes who had been
given these lands on a temporary lease and had
thereafter granted to them permanently (paragraph
2 of the judgment) and was not dealing with a land
which had been granted under the GMF scheme. In
my view, therefore, the reliance placed on this
judgment can be of no avail.
96. The then Government of Mysore, much before the
Rules were amended in 1960, which brought in Rule
43G, had issued a Government Order dated
11.04.1942 which sought to increase the lands
under cultivation and thereby enhance the
production of food grains, which were in short
supply. In this Government Order, it has been
stated as follows:
- 65 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
Government of His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore
General and Revenue Departments
G.O. No.R.6580-93-R.M.65-41-1, dated 11th April 1942
Food and fodder Crops
Issues orders granting certain concessions for
increasing the production of ---- in the State
"1. x x x
First year .... Free of assessment
2nd and 3rd year ... Half assessment
2. The Committee which was
appointed by Government in October
1940 to investigate this question stressed
the need for increasing the output of
paddy and togari and other pulses in the
State for meeting local requirements. The
total area under paddy has varied from
about 7 lakhs of acres to 8 lakhs a year,
according to the conditions of rainfall and
water supply in tanks and the trade
statistics show that Mysore has had to
import every year 10 to 20 lakh pallas of
paddy valued at from 50 to 100 lakhs of
rupees. In view of the international
situation, the problem of the supply of
rice has become very acute owing to the
difficultly of obtaining supplies from
places from where the State was
- 66 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
importing hitherto. It has, therefore,
become imperatively necessary to devise
measures to grow more paddy locally so
that the requirements of the people of
the state may be satisfied. A scheme has
already been sanctioned by Government
for a period of three years by which the
deficit is intended to be covered in part
by increasing production in 21 taluks of
the State. There is, however, a large
extent of unoccupied irrigable lands
which has not yet been brought under
cultivation and the disposal of these lands
has been slow, mainly due to the inability
of the applicants to pay the value of the
lands. Government therefore consider
that some special concessions should be
granted to persons intending to bring
these areas under cultivation and that
the normal procedure of darkhasts should
also be simplified so that the delay in the
grant of lands may be minimized as far
as possible. Government are accordingly
pleased to direct that the Deputy
Commissioners may be empowered to
lease out unoccupied irrigable lands
under channels and tanks for temporary
paddy cultivation for a period not
- 67 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
exceeding three years with concessions
as to payment of assessment as noted in
the margin. The persons who bring the
lands under cultivation will have the
option of purchasing the lands for a
reasonable upset price at the end of the
period of lease, viz., three years. They
are further pleased to direct that paddy
cultivation on marshy lands may be
encouraged by waiving the assessment,
provided the lands do not use channel
water directly"
(emphasis supplied)
97. It must be noticed here that the Government did not
make any special reservation to persons belonging
to depressed classes nor did they extend any
concession to them specifically. This scheme was
thrown open to the public in general and was made
available to any person who came forward to put
unoccupied lands to cultivation, given the
background that there was severe shortage of grains
and imperative steps were to be taken to increase
the production. The order, in fact, states that the
- 68 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
normal procedures of Darkhasts should be simplified
so that delay in grant of the lands were minimised.
98. Thus, the Government Order was, in essence, a
relaxation to the normal land grant rules which
contained various restrictions on granted lands. If
the lands are permitted to be occupied for putting
the same under cultivation and if the occupier is
given the option of purchasing the same after 3 or 5
years, if he has brought the lands leased to him
under cultivation, it is obvious that such kind of
grants cannot be imposed with the restrictive
clauses which would be applied in respect of the
normal grants.
99. It must be kept in mind that under the normal land
grant rules, the procedure for reserving lands to
depressed classes and allotting it to them because
they belong to depressed classes would make it a
granted land, which would, in turn, attract the
restrictive clauses. However, if the lands are allotted
- 69 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
in relaxation of the rules, obviously the restrictive
clauses can have no application.
100. It must also be stated here that a division bench of
this Court in W.A. Nos.4121-4134 of 20135 has held
that the lands granted under the GMF scheme
cannot be considered as granted land as defined
under the PTCL Act, and the PTCL Act can have no
application. This decision has also been followed in
W.P. No.37475 of 20116.
101. A Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.12748
of 20117 followed said decisions and held that the
provisions of the PTCL Act would be inapplicable in
Muniraju and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, WA Nos.4121-4134 of 2013,
disposed on 18.03.2015; the relevant paragraph reads as under:
"14. When the land is taken under 'Grow More Food Scheme', the
lessee is not required to pay rent or lease for the first year and he was
required to pay half of the assessment of the land for the subsequent
years. In the circumstances, we are of the view that if the land was
granted to Marappa on lease under 'Grow More Food Scheme' and
thereafter it is confirmed to him, it cannot be considered as a land
granted to him considering him as Scheduled Caste or a depressed
person ......"
V.N.Babu Reddy and another vs. Smt.Venkatamma and others, W.P. No.37475 of
2011, disposed on 08.12.2017;
Nanjamma and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, WP No.12748 of 2011
disposed on 25.02.2022;
- 70 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
respect of lands granted under the GMF scheme and
this decision has been affirmed by the Division
Bench in W.A. No.339 of 20228disposed on
19.09.2022 which has also been confirmed by the
Apex Court in SLP(C) No.4224 of 20239.
102. In light of the fact that the Apex Court has confirmed
the decision of the Division Bench holding that the
provisions of the PTCL Act would be inapplicable to
lands granted under the GMF scheme, the
arguments of Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil cannot be
accepted.
103. There are, however, a few disturbing aspects of this
case which brings to light the harassment that a
citizen has had to endure and it has become
necessary to pass orders remedying the injustice
caused.
Sri.B.Shivalingaiah vs. Smt.Nanjamma and others, WA No.339 of 2022 disposed of
19.09.2022;
Sri.B.Shivalingaiah vs. Smt.Nanjamma and others, SLP(c) No.4224 of 2023,
disposed of on 24.02.2023.
- 71 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
104. As already noticed above, an attempt was made to
usurp the land granted to Koramara Venkatamma by
contending that she was the wife of Anjanappa and
had sold the land after his death in contravention of
the terms of the grant, even though the land had
been granted to her distinctly and independently.
This crucial and key aspect was totally lost sight of
by the authorities and the lands were ordered to be
resumed.
105. After the order of resumption was passed, the
authorities have committed a blunder, which has
resulted in catastrophic consequences on innocent
people.
106. Under the provisions of the PTCL Act, more
specifically Section 5(1)(a) thereof, the Assistant
Commissioner is empowered to make an order to
take possession of such land if he has been satisfied
that the transfer of the granted land was null and
- 72 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
void. He is also empowered to take possession after
evicting all persons in possession in the prescribed
manner.
107. Thus, after holding an enquiry and on being satisfied
that a granted land has been transferred in
contravention of the terms of the grant made, the
Assistant Commissioner can declare that the transfer
is null and void and thereafter, also take possession
of the land by evicting all persons who are in
possession of the same, however, in the manner
prescribed.
108. The proviso to Section 5(1)(a) of the Act, in fact,
stipulates that no order shall be made unless the
person to be affected by the order is given a
reasonable opportunity of being heard.
109. Under Section 5(1)(b) of the Act, he is thereafter
required to restore the land to the original grantee
or his legal heir and only if that is not practicable,
- 73 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
the land is deemed to have vested in the State and
the State will have to grant the land to persons
belonging to scheduled castes or scheduled tribes.
110. The State has framed the Karnataka Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer
of Certain Lands) Rules, 1979 (for short, "the PTCL
Rules") under the PTCL Act and Rule 3 thereof
reads as under:
"3. Resumption and restitution of
granted lands: (1) Every application by
any interest person under Section 5 shall
be in Form I.
(2) On receipt of an application or
information under sub-section(1) of
Section 5, the Assistant Commissioner
may direct the applicant or informant, as
the case may be, to furnish such further
particulars or information as may be
required and fix a date for furnishing the
same.
(3) After receipt of the particulars or
information if any, called for under sub-
- 74 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
rule (2), the Assistant Commissioner
shall, by a notice in Form II, require the
person or persons in possession of the
granted land to file objections, to the
claim with documentary evidence, if any,
within such reasonable time, as the
Assistant Commissioner may think fit in
the circumstances of the case.
(4) The Assistant Commissioner shall fix a
date for hearing notice of which shall be
given to the applicant or the informant as
the case may be other interested persons
and persons objecting the claim. A copy
of the notice shall also be affixed on the
notice Board of the Office of the Assistant
Commissioner and the concerned Taluk
Office.
(5) Save as otherwise provided in these
rules, the Assistant Commissioner shall
for the purpose of an enquiry under
Section 5, follow the procedure for a
formal enquiry under Section 33 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
(6) After enquiry, the Assistant
Commissioner shall consider all the
objections raised and pass an order
- 75 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
giving reasons for his conclusions.
Thereafter he may take possession of
such land after evicting the persons in
possession thereof in the manner
specified in Section 39 of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, 1964 and take further
action as provided in Section 5.
(7) The provision of sub-rules (2) to (6) shall
mutatis mutandis apply to suo motu
action, if any taken by the Assistant
Commissioner."
111. As could be seen from the above, the Rule clearly
stipulates that the Assistant Commissioner is
required to issue a notice to the person in
possession, give him an opportunity to file
objections, hold an enquiry and then pass a
reasoned order.
112. The Assistant Commissioner is thereafter permitted
to take possession of the lands after evicting the
persons in possession of such land in the manner
specified in Section 39 of the KLR Act.
- 76 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
113. Section 39 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act reads
as follows:
"39. Manner of evicting any person
wrongfully in possession of land.--
Whenever it is provided by this Act or
any other law for the time being in force
that the Deputy Commissioner may or
shall evict any person wrongfully in
possession of land or where any order to
deliver possession of land has been
passed against any person under this Act,
such eviction shall be made or such order
shall be executed, as the case may be, in
the following manner, namely:--
(i) by serving a notice on the person or
persons in possession requiring them
within such time as may appear
reasonable after receipt of the said
notice to vacate the land, and
(ii) if such notice is not obeyed, by
removing or deputing a subordinate
officer to remove any person who may
refuse to vacate the same, and
(iii) if the officer removing any such person
is resisted or obstructed by any
- 77 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
person, the Deputy Commissioner or
the Revenue Officer, as the case may
be, shall hold a summary inquiry into
the facts of the case and, if satisfied
that the resistance or obstruction was
without any just cause and that such
resistance and obstruction still
continues, may, without prejudice to
any proceedings to which such person
may be liable under any law for the
time being in force for the punishment
of such resistance or obstruction, take
or cause to be taken, such steps and
use or cause to be used, such force as
may, in the opinion of such officer, be
reasonably necessary for securing
compliance with the order."
114. As could be seen from the above, a person against
whom an order of eviction has been passed shall be
evicted only in the manner specified therein. The
first requirement under Section 39 is for the Deputy
Commissioner to issue a notice to the person in
possession calling upon him to vacate the land and if
he disobeys such notice, he may remove the person
- 78 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
in possession by himself or by deputing a
subordinate.
115. If the person in possession resists or obstructs the
taking over of possession, a summary enquiry is
required to be conducted and only if he is satisfied
that there was no just cause for the obstruction, he
may cause the possession to be taken by the use of
reasonable force which is reasonably required to
secure compliance of the order to hand over
possession.
116. Thus, by the mere passing of an order holding that
the transfer of the granted land was null and void
and directing possession to be handed over, by itself,
would not entitle the Assistant Commissioner to
simply go and take possession and he is required to
first issue a notice to the person in possession to
vacate and if he disobeys such an order, he is
thereafter required to hold an enquiry and only on
being satisfied that there was no just cause for the
- 79 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
obstruction, he may dispossess the person in
possession by using reasonable force.
117. However, in this case, the procedure under Rule 3(6)
of the PTCL Rules and Section 39 of KLR Act has not
at all been followed. The Assistant Commissioner, on
an oral direction to file an affidavit in the matter of
taking possession, has filed an affidavit on
17.12.2024 in which it is stated as follows:
"3. I state that by going through the
documents available in the Asst.
Commissioner Office on record clearly
establishes that in case No.KACST/BNA
44/2011-12 passed in the Court of the
Asst. Commissioner Bengaluru North Sub
Division, Bengaluru dated 22.02.2019, the
then Asst. Commissioner restore the land
in favour of the legal heirs of the grantees
i.e., the present Petitioner. The Kacheri
Tippani dated 26.12.2018 nothing
indicates the procedure for the eviction,
the then Asst. Commissioner and
communication to the Tahsildar and spot
mahazar notices is not available in the
- 80 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
office of the Asst. Commissioner. The copy
of Kacheri Tippani dated 26.12.2018 is
herewith produced and marked as
DOCUMENT No.1. The endorsement dated
17.10.2018 is herewith produced and
marked as DOCUMENT No.2."
118. He has also enclosed an endorsement dated
17.10.2018 that had been issued to A.J.James, in
which it is stated that there are no notices issued as
contemplated under Rule 3(6) of the PTCL Rules or
under Section 39 of the KLR Act. This, thus,
fundamentally establishes that no steps were taken
in the manner specified under the PTCL Rules and
under Section 39 of the KLR Act, pursuant to the
order of resumption dated 02.09.2014 and the
persons in possession i.e., A.J.James and
B.M.Govindaraju's family members were
dispossessed in accordance with law.
119. It cannot be in dispute that in a proceeding under the
PTCL Act, a grantee or his legal heir is not in
possession of the lands that had been granted to
- 81 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
him, as he would have admittedly transferred them
to another in contravention of the terms of the grant
under an instrument. It is only after this transfer is
declared to be null and void can the transferee be
evicted and the land be restored to the grantee or
his legal heir.
120. If the persons in possession i.e., the transferee are
not dispossessed in the manner specified in Rule
3(6) of the PTCL Rules and Section 39 of the KLR
Act, the question of restoring the land to the grantee
would never arise.
121. However, in this case, without verifying this
elementary fact as to whether the transferees who
were admittedly in possession had been
dispossessed, the authorities have entertained the
application filed by Gowramma and Bylamma
seeking permission to sell the land which ordered to
be resumed in their favour.
- 82 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
122. In fact, in the recommendation made by the Deputy
Commissioner, which is already extracted above,
they have gone on to observe that Gowramma and
Bylamma were already in possession. This has been
done obviously for extraneous considerations.
123. In fact, pursuant to the complaint lodged by
A.J.James, an enquiry had been ordered by the
Government and the Regional Commissioner has
submitted a report that there were several
illegalities in the grant of permission and steps
should be taken to cancel the permission accorded.
This report, by itself, proves the callous manner in
which the officials have acted and which has resulted
in H.R.Suresh taking advantage of the situation and
dispossessing A.J.James and his wife, and also the
wife and children of B.M.Govindaraju and also
caused damage to their property.
124. In fact, A.J.James has placed on record, material to
show that the farmhouse that he had constructed
- 83 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
has been damaged considerably and material in this
regard was also placed before the Assistant
Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, but
they have not passed any order in this regard.
125. In my view, since the according of permission by the
State to H.R.Suresh without even verifying whether
the land had been resumed and restored to
Gowramma and Bylamma is the root cause of the
trauma and damage caused to A.J.James and his
wife, it would be appropriate to impose exemplary
costs of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) to be
paid by the State to A.J. James and his wife.
Ordered accordingly.
126. During the course of arguments, to a specific query
as to how H.R.Suresh got possession, it was stated
that Gowramma and Bylamma were in possession
and they had handed over the possession.
- 84 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
127. This reply cannot obviously be acceptable since
Gowramma and Bylamma in their application
seeking resumption themselves had requested the
Assistant Commissioner to restore the lands in their
favour. It is therefore obvious that H.R. Suresh has
used the sale deed executed in his favour to secure
possession to himself without even verifying whether
A.J.James, his wife and others had been
dispossessed in accordance with law pursuant to the
order of resumption that had been passed by the
Assistant Commissioner. It would therefore also be
necessary to impose exemplary costs on H.R.
Suresh in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs)
for taking law into his own hands and dispossessing
A.J.James and his wife, and also the wife and
children of B.M.Govindaraju. Ordered accordingly.
128. The costs, as ordered above, shall be paid within a
period of four weeks from today.
- 85 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
129. As a further consequence, the Deputy Commissioner
is directed to take immediate steps to evict
H.R.Suresh from the lands in question and put
A.J.James, Ancy James and also the wife and
children of B.M.Govindaraju in possession of land
bearing Sy.No.376 (Old Sy.No.259/22) measuring 02
acres of Bettahalasur village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru
North (Additional) Taluk, Bengaluru.
130. The Deputy Commissioner shall file an affidavit of
compliance, for which, though the matters have
been disposed of, shall be re-listed on 24.02.2025.
131. The points for consideration are accordingly
answered and all the writ petitions filed by
H.R.Suresh are accordingly dismissed in the above
terms.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
RK
