Karnataka High Court
Sri B Muthyam Reddy vs State Of Karnataka on 9 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:25104
WP No. 36331 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 36331 OF 2024 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. B. MUTHYAM REDDY
S/O B. MANOHAR REDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.195, 7TH CROSS,
1ST STAGE, INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560038.
2. SRI. G. SUDHAKAR NAIDU
S/O LATE G. KESAVULU NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
3. SMT. G. VIJAYALAKSHMI
W/O SRI. G. SUDHAKAR NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
PETITIONERS NO.2 & 3 ARE
Digitally signed R/AT NO.353, GROUND FLOOR,
by SHARMA
ANAND CHAYA DUO HEIGHT LAYOUT,
Location: HIGH 8TH CROSS, BEGUR VILLAGE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560068.
4. MRS. CHALLA RAJESWARI
W/O LATE SRINIVASULU REDDY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT KALUVOYA, NELLORE
ANDHRA PRADESH - 524343.
5. MRS. BEJAWADA RAGHUPATHI SOWMYA
W/O K. MALLIKARJUNA NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.43/93-A
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:25104
WP No. 36331 of 2024
HC-KAR
THOGATA STREET, BOSE NAGAR
RAYACHOTI, CUDDAPAH
ANDHRA PRADESH - 516269.
6. SRI. BOLLU SATYANARAYANA
S/O BOLLU KESAVULU
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT NO.50/153,
RAMALAYAM STREET
KOTHAPETA RAYACHOTI
CUDAPAH
ANDHRA PRADESH - 516269.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. B.S. GAUTHAM FOR P1;
SRI. P.B. AJITH, ADVOCATE FOR P2 TO P4;
SRI. SRINIVAS RAGHAVAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GURUPRASAD C. REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR P5)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S. BUILDINGS
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD
BENGALURU - 560009.
3. SRI. VENKATESHAPPA
S/O LATE YELAPPA URF AMMAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT NO.3, NEAR
THUBARAHALLI BUS STOP
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:25104
WP No. 36331 of 2024
HC-KAR
WHITEFIELD POST
VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU - 560066.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN K.SCST NO.44/2024 ON
THE FILE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT A COPY OF WHICH
PETITION ALONG WITH ORDER SHEET IS PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
CAV ORDER
1. In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the
proceedings in K.SC.ST.No.44/2024 on the file of respondent
No.2 (Annexure-A), in so far as the petitioners herein are
concerned.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:25104
WP No. 36331 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. The facts in nutshell as averred in the writ petition are
that, the land bearing Sy.No.7/1 of Thuberahalli Village,
Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, to an extent of 2 acres
was owned by one Sri. Neeragante Miyappa. The said Sri.
Neeragante Miyappa has sold said 2 acres in favour of one
Sri. Chinnappa, as per the registered Sale Deed dated
04.03.1966. Thereafter, the said Chinnappa has sold an
extent of 1 acre (out of 2 acres) in favour of one Smt.
Sampattamma, as per registered Sale Deed dated
14.10.1968. The said Sampattamma, as per registered Sale
Deed dated 17.03.1975, sold the same in favour of one Smt.
Aleyamma Koshy. The said Aleyamma Koshi, died on
08.01.2001, leaving behind the vendors of the petitioner
herein, as her legal heirs.
3. It is further stated that, the land in question is
converted for non agricultural purpose as per Official
Memorandum dated 30.12.2003 as per Annexure-D.
Thereafter, the vendors of the petitioner has sold the same
to M/s. Creative Developers, as per registered Sale Deed
(Annexure-E), dated 31.01.2004. It is further stated that
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:25104
WP No. 36331 of 2024
HC-KAR
the revenue records stand in the name of the petitioner. It
is further stated in the writ petition that, the respondent
No.3 herein, suppressing the material facts with regard to
the matter concluded by this Court in W.P.No.16290/2012 &
W.P.No.19096/2012 which was confirmed in W.A.Nos.4332-
4333/2016 and in W.P.No.13725/2022, has initiated fresh
proceedings against the petitioners, before the respondent
No.2, and feeling aggrieved by the same, the present Writ
Petition is filed.
4. Heard Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri. B.S. Gautham, learned counsel
for the petitioner No.1; Sri. Srinivas Raghavan, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Guru Prasad C.
Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner No.5; and Sri. P.B.
Ajith, learned counsel for petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4; Smt.
Savithramma, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2; and Sri. C.
Shankar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:25104
WP No. 36331 of 2024
HC-KAR
5. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel representing
the petitioners that the impugned proceedings before
respondent No.2 is not maintainable in view of the Judgment
of this Court in W.P.No.16290/2012 and W.P.No.13725/2022
wherein, this Court allowed the writ petitions by quashing
the impugned proceedings therein.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3
sought to justify the impugned proceedings at Annexure-A.
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted
that, the second application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act
for resumption and restoration of the subject land is not
maintainable.
8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, this Court in
W.P.No.16290/2012 & W.P.No.19096/2012, disposed of on
02.09.2016 (Annexure-B), in respect of the same subject
land and very same proceedings, arrived at the conclusion
that the grantee/petitioner has not established that grant of
land made in favour of Miya on 26.11.1940 and the said
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:25104
WP No. 36331 of 2024
HC-KAR
order of the learned Single Judge was confirmed in
W.A.No.4332-33/2016 (Annexure-C), disposed of on
28.07.2017. In the said appeal, this Court has recorded the
finding that, there was no original certificate available in the
office of the respondent as per the submission made by the
learned Additional Government Advocate. That apart, in the
second round of litigation by some of the legal
representatives of Miya, in W.P.No.13725/2022 (Annexure-
P), disposed of on 23.08.2022, recorded a finding that there
was no grant made in favour of Miya as well as delay in
invoking the proceedings under the PTCL Act, accordingly,
quashed the proceedings.
8. In that view of the matter, in this writ petition, the
relief sought for by the petitioners as to the application by
some of the legal representatives of Miya claiming right
against the respondents therein in K.SC.ST.No.44/2024
(Annexure-A) is not maintainable and taking into
consideration that the matter has been concluded in the
aforesaid proceedings by this Court, the respondent No.2 has
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:25104
WP No. 36331 of 2024
HC-KAR
no jurisdiction under law to continue the proceedings in
K.SC.ST.No.44/2024.
9. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings in K.SC.ST.No.44/2024 before
the respondent No.2 is hereby quashed.
(iii) No order as to costs.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SAC
