Karnataka High Court
Akkayappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 26 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:12778-DB
WA No. 104 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL No. 104 OF 2025 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
1. AKKAYAPPA,
S/O LATE CHANNARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
THANISANDRA,
K. R. PURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK 560 077.
2. VENAKTESH,
S/O CHANNARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
THANISANDRA,
K.R. PURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK 560 077.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed
by VALLI (BY SRI HALESHA R. G., ADVOCATE)
MARIMUTHU
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
BANGALORE 560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
BANGALORE - 560001.
3. THE GOVINDAPPA,
S/O LATE APPANNAPPA,
THANISANDRA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:12778-DB
WA No. 104 of 2025
K. R. PURAM HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK.
CHIKKANNA,
S/O HEBBAL CHINNASWAMPAPA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS,
4. T. C. HEMANNA,
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
5. T. C. CHINNASWAMY,
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
BOTH 4(a) AND 4(b)
R/AT HEGDE NAGAR MAIN ROAD,
OPP KEB NARAYANAPPA BUILDING,
THANISANDRA VILLAGE,
SHIVARAMAKARANTH NAGAR,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU 560077.
6. MANJAMMA,
W/O LATE GUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT No.53, AADITYA NAGAR,
5TH MAIN ROAD,
KOTHANUR MAIN ROAD,
J. P. NAGAR 8TH PHASE,
BENGALURU 5600078.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.11.2024 IN WP No. 23637/2012 (SC-ST)
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE WHEREBY CONFIRMED
THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU ON 26.05.2012 IN CASE No.
SC.ST(A)/152/09-10 AND IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU ON 02.08.2008 IN CASE
No.KSC.ST/01/2006-07, PRODUCED IN WRIT PETITION AS ANNEXURE-
Q AND K.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:12778-DB
WA No. 104 of 2025
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. R. G. Halesha for the
appellants-applicants and learned Government Advocate Mr. K.
S. Harish, who appeared upon service of the copy of appeal in
advance.
2. While the appeal comes up on Board along with the
interim application for condonation of delay of 32 days, since
the main appeal as well as the order of learned Single Judge
impugned in the appeal were available on record and the
submissions were made by learned advocates on merits, the
Court had an occasion to dwell into the merits of the impugned
order itself.
3. The appellants-petitioners prayed before the learned
Single Judge to set aside the order dated 26.05.2012 passed by
the Deputy Commissioner-respondent No.1 herein, as well as
NC: 2025:KHC:12778-DB
the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 02.08.2008,
which was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner.
3.1 The application was filed by one Sharadamma W/o.
Channappa who happened to be the daughter-in-law of the
original grantee of the land, described as Survey No.93/4 ad-
measuring 2 Acres situated at Thanisandra Village,
Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluka. A prayer was
made before the Assistant Commissioner by filing an
application for restoration of the land on the ground that the
applicants were the heirs of the original grantee, which was
rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner.
3.2 It was those orders, which came to be challenged before
learned Single Judge.
3.3 The relevant facts to be noted are that the said land was
granted to Chennarayappa in the year 1930-31 as per the rules
prevalent at the time of grant. There was a condition
prohibiting alienation of the land for 20 years. The original
grantee sold the land after the embargo period of 20 years on
NC: 2025:KHC:12778-DB
03.08.1953. When the land was sold, the sale was permissible
as per the condition of the grant.
3.4 It appears that subsequently in the year 1974, the
grantee decided to get the deed of re-conveyance executed in
the name of his first wife's son. Thereafter, the stand was taken
by the applicants-the heirs of the grantee that the original
alienation of the land was not permissible in law as it attracted
the bar of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands)
Act, 1978, more particularly, Section 4(2) of the said Act. It
was on such ground, application was made before the Assistant
Commissioner for restoration of the land.
4. Learned Single Judge observed that once the sale deed
was executed, there was transfer of title validly made in favour
of the third party named Chennarayappa,
"20. It is also to be stated here that at the time
of this conveyance, there was no prohibition for
the sale and the land stood vested absolutely in
favor of Chennarayappa. If the land stood vested
absolutely in the name of Chennarayappa, the
question of it being a granted land as defined
under the provisions of the PTCL Act would not
arise. The subsequent re-purchase by the
applicants, even assuming it was re-purchased by
the grantee, would not change the nature of the
land and would not resume the character of it to
be a granted land."
NC: 2025:KHC:12778-DB
4.1 It was then observed by learned Single Judge that the
moment the purchase was made by the applicants from the
purchasers, who were entitled to purchase it, the land
essentially became their personal property and cannot be
construed as property of the grantee Chennarayappa.
Consequently, the sale made by them in the year 1992 cannot
be held to be a transfer in contravention of the term of a
grant. For the said reasons, learned Single Judge dismissed
the petition and upheld the orders of the Deputy Commissioner
and Assistant Commissioner.
5. The view taken by learned Single Judge in the facts of the
case could be said to be eminently proper and legal. No
interference would have warranted in the impugned order. In
that view, the question of condoning the delay does not arise
and is not condoned. The application for condonation of delay
as well as the main appeal, both are dismissed.
SD/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
SD/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
