Karnataka High Court

M/S The Hamlet vs State Of Karnataka on 16 June, 2025

                                               -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC:22772
                                                         WP No. 26657 of 2024


                   HC-KAR



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                              BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
                            WRIT PETITION NO.26657 OF 2024 (SCST)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    M/S THE HAMLET
                         A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, NO.11,
                         KEMWELL HOUSE, TUMKUR ROAD,
                         YESHWANTHAPURA- 560022
                         REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER
                         MR. S.R. CHANDAK

                   2.    SATTVA CITY PRIVATE LIMITED
                         FORMERLY KNOWN AS
                         NABS TECHPARK PVT. LTD.
                         A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
                         THE COMPANY ACT, 2013
                         HAVING OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR,
                         SALARPURIA WINDSOR,
Digitally signed
by SHARMA                3, ULSOOR ROAD,
ANAND CHAYA
Location: HIGH
                         BENGALURU-560042,
COURT OF                 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED
KARNATAKA
                         SIGNATORY
                         MR. ASHWIN SANCHETI
                         MANAGING DIRECTOR
                                                                 ...PETITIONERS
                   (BY SRI. P.N.MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE A/W

                   SRI. VINAY N., ADVOCATE)
                           -2-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC:22772
                                   WP No. 26657 of 2024


HC-KAR



AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
     MS BUILDING,
     DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
     BENGALURU-560001.

2.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
     BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
     BENGALURU-560009.

3.   MR. MUNAIAHA
     S/O. LATE LACHAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT MEENUKUNTE VILLAGE,
     DODDAJALA POST, JALA HOBLI,
     BANGALORE NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK,
     PRESENTLY YELAHANKA TALUK,
     BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562157.

4.   MR. ESHWARAPPA
     S/O. LATE GUNAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT MEENUKUNTE VILLAGE,
     DODDAJALA POST, JALA HOBLI,
     BANGALORE NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK,
     PRESENTLY YELAHANKA TALUK,
     BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562157.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH BABURAO, AGA FOR R1 & R2;

SRI. T. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)
                             -3-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC:22772
                                      WP No. 26657 of 2024


HC-KAR



     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO              QUASH
THE NOTICE DATED 26.08.2024 BEARING CASE ID. PTCL/YLK-
36/2024   ISSUED    BY     THE    RESPONDENT      NO.2    AND
CONSEQUENTLY     QUASH     THE    ENTIRE   PROCEEDINGS      IN
K.SC.ST.PTCL/YLK-36/2024         PENDING      BEFORE       THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 (PRODUCED AS ANNX-X AND Y); AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS

UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH


                      ORAL ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing

the notice dated 26.08.2024, issued by the respondent

No.2, and sought for quashing the proceedings in

K.SC.ST.PTCL/YLK-36 of 2024 pending consideration

before the respondent No.2 (Annexure-Y and X)

respectively, inter-alia sought for direction to the

respondent No.2 to restrain from proceeding further in

K.SC.ST.PTCL/YLK-36 of 2024 (Annexure-Y and X).

NC: 2025:KHC:22772

HC-KAR

2. Relevant facts for the adjudication of this writ

petition are that, the petitioners claim that the land

bearing Sy.No. 45, measuring 05 acres, 03 guntas

situate at Meenukunte Village, Yalahanka Taluk was

partitioned by the children of one late Kondappa. Sri

Lacchappa, son of late Kondappa and others had

executed Sale Agreement dated 13.03.1996 in favour

of the petitioner No.1 in respect of 03 acres, 02 guntas.

Similarly, Smt. Muniyamma, wife of late Muniyappa

and others had executed registered Sale Deed dated

13.03.1996 in favour of the petitioner No.1 in respect

of 02 acres, 01 gunta in the said survey number. It is

also stated that aforementioned Lachhappa and Smt.

Muniyamma had made an application to the Spl.

Deputy Commissioner seeking conversion of land in

question and pursuant to the same, Spl. Deputy

Commissioner (Revenue) Bangalore District by Official

Memorandum dated 09.08.1996 ordered for conversion

NC: 2025:KHC:22772

HC-KAR

of the land in question as per Annexure-A and B

respectively. Thereafter, the original owners of the land

Lachhppa and Muniyamma executed registered Sale

Deed dated 31.01.1996 in favour of petitioner No.1 as

per Annexure-C to G respectively. Pursuant to the

execution of the registered Sale Deed, the revenue

records mutated in favour of petitioner No.1. In the

meanwhile, one Munaiah, son of late, Lachhappa i.e.

respondent No.3, has filed an application under Section

5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act,

1978 (herein after referred to as 'PTCL Act') before the

respondent No.2, seeking restoration of land in

question and the said application came to be allowed

by the respondent No.2, on 10.06.2008. Being

aggrieved by the same, the petitioner No.1, has filed

an appeal in K.SC.ST.(A) 50 of 2008-09 and Spl.

Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, by order

NC: 2025:KHC:22772

HC-KAR

dated 04.08.2010 allowed the appeal and set aside the

order of resumption made by respondent No.2.

Similarly, Smt. Muniyamma had filed W.P.No.24908 of

2010 before this court challenging the order passed by

the Spl. Deputy Commissioner dated 04.08.2010 and

the petitioner No.1 also filed W.P.No.16054 of 2011.

This court by order dated 28.01.2013 allowed

W.P.No.24908 of 2010 and W.P.No.16054 of 2011 and

quashed the order passed by Appellate Authority and

remanded the matter to respondent No.2 for fresh

consideration. After remand, made by this Court,

respondent No.2 by order dated 06.04.2015 dismissed

the petition in K.SC.ST No.90/2007-08 and being

aggrieved by the same, Smt. Muniyamma has

preferred an appeal in SC.ST(A) 9/2015-016 which

came to be dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner on

07.10.2016. The said order of the Deputy

Commissioner was challenged in W.P.No.60483-84 of

NC: 2025:KHC:22772

HC-KAR

2016 and the said petitions came to be dismissed on

16.12.2021. During the pendency of the said writ

petition, question of law was referred to the larger

Bench of this Court for consideration with reference

made therein and accordingly, Full Bench of this court

by order dated 05.07.2021 in W.P.No.60483-84 of

2016 (Annexure-H), held that, once the land is

converted for non-agricultural purpose, the land loses

its nature of granted land and held that protection of

under Section 4(2) of PTCL Act is not available for the

grantees. The order passed by the Full Bench of this

court is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide

order dated 28.01.2022 in SLP No.21079 of 2021

(Annexure-J). It is also to be noted that, in

W.P.No.60483 of 2016 (Annexure-K) filed by the

private respondents, came to be dismissed by this

court on 16.12.2021 (Annexure-K), and the said order

was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in

NC: 2025:KHC:22772

HC-KAR

W.A.No.383 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 (Annexure-L)

and thereafter confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in SLP No.50560 of 2023 (Annexure-M). The

petitioners have also provided the series of other

proceedings filed between the petitioners and amongst

the respondents. In the meanwhile, the petitioner No.1

has executed registered Sale Deed dated 18.04.2024 in

favour of the petitioner No.2 as per Annexure-N. It is

also to be noted that, the Deputy Commissioner,

Bangalore by order dated 15.05.2024 (Annexure-P),

has quashed the original conversion order dated

09.08.1996 and 05.09.1996 made in favour of the

erstwhile owners of the petitioners herein belatedly,

and the same was questioned in W.P.No.15250 of 2024

and same was allowed by this court on 27.01.2025. In

the backdrop of these aspects, the private respondents

herein have again approached respondent No.2 herein

as per Annexure-X and in furtherance of the same, the

NC: 2025:KHC:22772

HC-KAR

respondent No.2 has issued notice dated 26.08.2024 as

per Annexure-Y which is impugned in this writ petition.

3. I have heard Sri. P.N. Manmohan, along with

Sri. Vinay. N., learned counsel for the petitioners and

Sri. Siddarth Babu Rao, learned Additional Government

Advocate appearing for the respondent-State and Sri. T.

Prakash, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 3

and 4.

4. Sri. P.N. Manmohan, and Sri. Vinay N.,

learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the

land in question has been converted as per the order

produced at Annexures-A and B as per the order made

by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner and therefore, the

Deputy Commissioner has no authority in law to quash

the said orders of conversion as Deputy Commissioner

become functus officio to pass order at Annexure-P and

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:22772

HC-KAR

accordingly, submitted that the this court has allowed

the writ petition filed by the petitioners herein in

W.P.No.15250 of 2024 dated 27.01.2025. He further

contended that, the private respondents herein have

invoked the provisions of resumption of land as per

PTCL Act and the said order of resumption was

interfered with by this court by the learned Single

Judge as well as Division Bench of this court and same

was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP

No.21079 of 2021 and respondent-State also preferred

Special Leave Petition in SLP (Civil)D. No.50560 of

2023 in same proceedings concerned and same came

to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on

08.01.2024 (Annexure-M) and in that view of the

matter, learned counsel for the petitioners contended

that respondent No.2 has no authority under law to

reverse the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:22772

HC-KAR

Court and this court and accordingly, sought for

interference of this Court to quash impugned notice.

5. It is further contended by Sri. P.N. Manmohan,

learned counsel for the petitioners that, ones the

proceedings with regard to resumption of land under

PTCL Act has reached finality, the second petition

before original authority is not maintainable and

accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

6. In this regard, he places reliance on the

judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the

case of Narayanaswamy vs. The District

Commissioner and others in W.A.No.3885 of 2019

disposed of on 06.11.2019 and in the case of Smt.

Lakshmamma vs. The State of Karnataka and

others in W.A. No.1627 of 2023 disposed of on

03.07.2024 and contended the respondent No.2 has

no authority under law to issue notice to the

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:22772

HC-KAR

petitioners for the second time and accordingly,

sought for interference of this Court.

7. Per contra, Sri. T. Prakash, learned counsel for

the respondent Nos.3 and 4, has filed memo and

referring to the same, he submitted that respondent

Nos.3 and 4, are seeking leave of this court to

withdraw the petition filed by them as per Annexure-X

before the respondent No.2 in KSC/ST (PTCL) No.

36/2024. He further submitted that, in the event

respondent Nos.3 and 4 are permitted to withdraw the

petition filed before the respondent No.2 as per

Annexure-X and nothing survive for consideration in

this writ petition. He also contended that the Hon'ble

Supreme Court had kept open the legal issue relating

to whether the grant order of conversion by the Deputy

Commissioner requires to be considered as the

grantees have lost this right in respect of the granted

land and it is open for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:22772

HC-KAR

agitate their rights before the competent

Authority/Forum.

8. Sri. Siddarth Baburao, learned Additional

Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-

State sought to justify the notice produced at

Annexures- Y.

9. In the light of the submission made by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is required

to reiterate that, the Rule of Law is the hallmark of the

Constitution of India and, it is the duty of the executive

to obey and follow the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in strict sense under Article 141 of the

Constitution of India. In this regard, on careful

examination of the averments in the writ petition and

having taken consideration of the submissions made by

the learned counsel appearing for the parties would

indicate that, Lachhappa and Muniyamma had made an

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:22772

HC-KAR

application seeking conversion of land in question and

Spl. Deputy Commissioner by order dated 09.08.1996

(Annexure-A) and 05.09.1996 (Annexure-B), passed an

order for conversion of the land in question for the

purpose of non-agriculture use. It is also to be noted

that, Lachhappa and Muniyamma had executed

registered Sale Deed dated 31.10.1996 in favour of

petitioner No.1. It is also to be noted that son of late

Lachhappa i.e. respondent No.3 herein, has

approached the respondent No.2 seeking restoration of

the land in question under the provisions of PTCL Act

as the said land has been sold in violation of the terms

of the conditions stated in the grant order and the

respondent No.2 herein by order dated 10.06.2008

allowed the petition filed by the respondent No.3 in

K.SC.ST.90 of 2007-08. The petitioner No.1, being

aggrieved by the same, challenged the same before the

Appellate Authority in K.SC.ST (A) 50 of 2008-09 and

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:22772

HC-KAR

the Spl. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore by order

dated 04.08.2010 allowed the appeal by the petitioner

No.1 and set aside the order dated 10.06.2008 passed

by the respondent No.2. Smt. Muniyamma and others

have preferred petition in W.P.No.24908 of 2008 before

this court, challenging the order dated 04.08.2010

passed by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner in the

Appellate Authority jurisdiction and the petitioner No.1

has also filed petition W.P.No.16054 of 2011 and this

court vide order dated 28.01.2013 allowed the petition

filed by the petitioners and as such, quashed the order

passed in K.SC.ST.90/2007-08 and as such, remanded

the matter for fresh consideration. After remand made

by this court, the respondent No.2, dismissed the

petition in K.SC.ST.90/2007-08 and being aggrieved by

the same, the said Muniyamma preferred appeal before

the Deputy Commissioner in SC.ST(A) No.9 of 2015-16

and the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC:22772

HC-KAR

07.10.2016 dismissed the appeal. The said order was

challenged in W.P.No.60483-84 of 2016 and this court

vide order dated 16.12.2021, dismissed the writ

petition. It is also to be noted that, the question of law

was referred to the Full Bench of this court as to

whether the definition of the granted land 'as found in

the PTCL Act only to the 'agricultural land' and it is also

forthcoming from the order passed by this court at

Annexure-R, wherein, the question was referred to the

Full Bench whether the order of conversion under

Section 95 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, can

be construed as prior permission by the government

satisfying the requirement under Section 4(2) of the

PTCL Act, at paragraph this court has held that ones

the permission for conversion of land is granted under

Section 95 of the Act, by the Deputy Commissioner the

aforesaid land looses it nature as granted land and

therefore, the protection under Section 4(2) of the

- 17 -

NC: 2025:KHC:22772

HC-KAR

PTCL is no longer available to the grantee. It is to be

noted that the judgment of the Full Bench of this court

produced at Annexure-R, was confirmed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in SLP No.21079 of 2021 (Annexure-J).

Thereafter the W.P.No.60483 of 2016 filed by the

respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein, challenging the order

dated 06.04.2015 passed by the respondent No.2

herein came to be dismissed on 16.12.2021 (Annexure-

K). It also to be noted that the order passed by the

Single Judge was confirmed in WA No.383 of 2022

dated 01.09.2022 Annexure-L. Being aggrieved by the

same, respondent No.4 approached the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 50560 of 20213

(Annexure-M) and said petition came to dismissed. In

that view of the matter, taking into consideration, the

judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in

W.A.No.1627 of 2023 dated 03.07.2024 and the order

dated 06.11.2019 in W.A.No.3855 of 2019, wherein,

- 18 -

NC: 2025:KHC:22772

HC-KAR

Division Bench of this court has held that fresh petition

/second petition on the same cause of action under

Section 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act are not maintainable

and same came to be confirmed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court. In that view of the matter, following

the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the cases referred to above and Division Bench

of this court, the respondent No.2 has committed a

serious error at Annexure-X and issued the impugned

notice at Annexure-Y in a concluded proceedings. It is

to be noted that, respondent-authorities, being the

quasi judicial authority are bound to obey the order of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this court and not

empowered to issue notice mechanically, to the

respondents without considering the settled principles

of law. In that view of the matter, the petitioners have

made out a case for interference by this court on the

impugned notice issued by respondent No.2 in

- 19 -

NC: 2025:KHC:22772

HC-KAR

derogance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court and Division Bench of this court and as exercising

its power un-judiciously and therefore, impugned

notice issued to the petitioners herein requires to be

set aside. Though the learned counsel for the

respondents filed memo to withdraw the petition before

the Respondent No.2, however, as observed above,

Respondent No.2 has committed error is entertaining

the second petition, in a concluded proceedings

demonstrates the callousness on the part of the

respondent No.2, and therefore, the memo is liable to

be rejected as liberty is sought in the memo by the

private respondents. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The writ petition is allowed;


      ii) Notice    dated     26.08.2024         (Annexure-Y),

           issued   by   the        respondent       No.2    and
                                - 20 -
                                               NC: 2025:KHC:22772



 HC-KAR