Karnataka High Court
Smt. Gangahanumakka vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48530-DB
W.A. No.920/2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.920/2023 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. GANGAHANUMAKKA
W/O LATE NARASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
2. SMT. LAKSHMI
D/O LATE NARASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
Digitally signed by
ARSHIFA BAHAR
KHANAM 3. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR
Location: High S/O LATE NARASAIAH
Court Of Karnataka AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT
BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. ADV., FOR
SRI. R. KUMAR, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48530-DB
W.A. No.920/2023
HC-KAR
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DC OFFICE
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BEERASANDRA VILLAGE
KUNDHANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562 110.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION
DODDABALLAPURA-561 203.
4. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O LATE CHOWDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
5. SMT. RADHA
D/O LATE CHOWDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
6. SRI. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE CHOWDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.
7. SMT. PADMA
D/O LATE CHOWDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.
8. SRI. NAGARAJU
S/O NAGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
NO.4 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT
BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123.
9. SRI. JAYARAM
S/O ANDHANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48530-DB
W.A. No.920/2023
HC-KAR
RESIDING AT NO.1, BYRAVA NILAYA
JAYARAM BUILDING
NEAR VISHAL ENGLISH SCHOOL
SRIKANTAPURA
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560 073.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
SRI. V. SHIVAKUMAR, ADV., FOR C/R8
SRI. Y.R. SADASIVA REDDY, SR. ADV., FOR
SRI. RAHUL S. REDDY, ADV., FOR R9
R4 TO R7 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER Dt
20/06/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.
No.20602/2021 (SC/ST) AND TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION
AS PRAYED FOR & ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 14.11.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated
20.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.20602/2021 (SC/ST).
NC: 2025:KHC:48530-DB
HC-KAR
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are
that the land bearing old Sy.No.13, new Sy.No.71,
measuring 2 acres situated at Bommanahalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore Rural District, was granted by the
State Government on 15.01.1979 in favour of late
Sri.Narasaiah, husband of the appellant No.1 and the
father of the appellant Nos.2 and 3 as they belong to
Scheduled Caste. The saguvali chit was issued on
30.07.1980. The grantee-late Narasaiah, along with his
wife executed a sale deed dated 04.09.1985 to the extent
of 1 acre 20 guntas in favour of N.S.Gangadhar. The
grantee initiated proceedings under Section 5 of the
Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which came to be
allowed. The Deputy Commissioner further upheld the
appeal and restored the land in favour of the grantee.
Later, the said purchaser got executed a sale deed from
the grantee for 1 acre of land after obtaining permission
NC: 2025:KHC:48530-DB
HC-KAR
from the Authority for alienation. Later Smt.Jayamma,
sister-in-law of the grantee-late Narasaiah also alienated
25 guntas in favour of Jayaram-respondent No.9 and the
respondent Nos.4 to 7 gifted 1 gunta in favour of
Nagaraju. The appellants filed an application under
Section 5 of the Act which came to be allowed by ordering
resumption and restoration. The Deputy Commissioner
reversed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The
appellants challenged the said order in the writ petition.
The learned Single Judge held that the grantee purchased
the land in a public auction and the land is beyond the
purview of the Act and dismissed the writ petition. Being
aggrieved, this appeal is filed.
3. Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior counsel
appearing for Sri.R.Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellants submits that the learned Single Judge erred in
recording the finding that the land is beyond the purview
of the Act and late Narasaiah had purchased the said land
in a public auction which was uncalled for. It is submitted
NC: 2025:KHC:48530-DB
HC-KAR
that none of the parties to the proceedings have raised
this issue. Infact, the respondents' pleading indicate that
the land was granted to Naraisaiah and thereafter, they
sold the land after obtaining permission from the
Authority. It is further submitted that the learned Single
Judge ought to have remanded the matter back to the
Assistant Commissioner to examine whether the land in
question is a granted land or late Narasaiah purchased it
in a public auction. It is also submitted that the alleged
permission to alienate was not in force as on the date of
sale and gift deeds as there is violation of the condition of
the alleged permission. A perusal of the condition
indicates that the permission order would be in force for 4
months and the transfer in question is beyond 4 months.
Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.
4. Per contra, Sri.Y.R.Sadasiva Reddy, learned
Senior counsel for Sri.Rahul S.Reddy, learned counsel for
the respondent No.9 and Sri.V.Shivakumar, learned
counsel for the respondent No.8 support the impugned
NC: 2025:KHC:48530-DB
HC-KAR
order and submit that the learned Single Judge examined
the records and recorded a clear finding that the subject
matter of the property is purchased by late Narasaiah in a
public auction. Hence, the question of seeking permission
from the Competent Authority for alienation and the
alleged violation of the provisions of the Act would not
arise. It is submitted that out of 2 acres of land, 1 acre
was retained by late Narasaiah and another 1 acre was
given to late Sri.Chowdaiah who is none other than his
brother, in a partition and thereafter, mutations have been
effected and the name of late Chowdaiah and his legal
heirs were continued in the revenue records and
thereafter, as an abundant caution, obtained permission
from the Authority and sold 25 guntas of land in favour of
the respondent No.9 and 1 gunta of land was gifted in
favour of respondent No.8. It is further submitted that the
appellants have no right whatsoever over the land in
question since they have sold their portion long back in
NC: 2025:KHC:48530-DB
HC-KAR
favour of N.S.Gangadhar. Hence, they seek to dismiss the
appeal.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the
respondents and perused the material available on record.
We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions made on both sides.
6. The point that arises for our consideration is:
"Whether the impugned order calls for any
interference?"
7. The answer to the aforesaid question is in the
negative for the following reasons:
a) The material on record indicate that the land in old
Sy.No.13, new Sy.No.71, measuring 2 acres situated at
Bommanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore Rural
District, was granted by the State Government on
15.01.1979 in favour of late Narasaiah, husband of the
NC: 2025:KHC:48530-DB
HC-KAR
appellant No.1 and the father of the appellant Nos.2 and
3. The saguvali chit was issued on 30.07.1980.
b) The grantee-late Narasaiah, along with his wife
executed a sale deed dated 04.09.1985 to the extent of 1
acre 20 guntas in favour of N.S.Gangadhar. Thereafter,
the grantee initiated proceedings under Section 5 of the
Act. The Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur, ordered
for restoration and resumption of the land in favour of the
grantee vide order dated 26.12.2000. The purchaser filed
an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru
Rural District, which came to be dismissed on 04.11.2002.
(c) Late Narasaiah and his brother late Chowdaiah
got partitioned the granted land by Panchayat palu patti.
As per the partition, an extent of 1 acre in Sy.No.71 was
allotted to the share of late Narasaiah and the remaining 1
acre of land was allotted to the share of late Chowdaiah as
is evident from Annexure-R1. The revenue entries were
mutated in the name of late Narasaiah and late
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48530-DB
HC-KAR
Chowdaiah, respectively to the extent of 1 acre each as
per the partition. The name of late Chowdaiah was
effected in the revenue record as per M.R.No.7/1992-93
as is evident from Annexures-R2 to R4. Late Narasaiah
and the appellants alienated 1 acre of land in favour of
N.S.Gangadhar after obtaining the permission from the
Authority. Late Narasaiah died on 11.02.2009 leaving
behind the appellants as his legal heirs.
(d) Smt.Jayamma, sister-in-law of late Narasaiah and
wife of late Chowdaiah along with respondent Nos.5 to 7
alienated 25 guntas of land that fell in the share of late
Chowdaiah in favour of Jayaram-respondent No.9 and
gifted 1 gunta in favour of Nagaraju-respondent No.8 vide
gift deed and sale deed both dated 05.08.2019. The
aforesaid alienation is after obtaining the permission from
the Authority. It is to be noticed that the said permission
for alienation dated 08.11.2017 was not challenged by the
appellants. Now, they cannot contend that the sale deed
and gift deed are in violation of condition No.4. Late
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48530-DB
HC-KAR
Narasaiah and late Chowdaiah got partitioned the property
and the said partition was acted as is evident from the
revenue records and thereafter, the appellants sold the
property that fell in their share in favour of N.S.Gangadhar
and the remaining property of 1 acre which fell in the
share of late Chowdaiah has been sold and gifted in favour
of the respondent Nos.8 and 9 to the extent of 25 guntas
and 1 gunta, respectively and 14 guntas of land was
retained by them. The aforesaid events and the records
supporting the said events prima facie indicate that the
appellants have no right over the land which is the subject
matter of this appeal. It is made clear that the aforesaid
findings recorded by us are only restricted for the lis in
question.
(e) The appellants initiated proceedings for
resumption of the land in question which came to be
allowed by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur,
vide order dated 23.11.2020 and which was reversed by
the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, by
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48530-DB
HC-KAR
setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner
dated 22.10.2021 as is evident from Annexure-L. The
finding of the Assistant Commissioner would run contrary
to the material placed before this Court. We have already
recorded the finding that the appellants have no prima
facie right whatsoever with regard to the land in question.
Hence, initiation of proceedings for restoration and
resumption of the land before the Assistant Commissioner
ought not have been entertained. The Deputy
Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, has recorded a
detailed finding and held that the sale and gift have taken
place after obtaining the permission from the Competent
Authority. The said finding of fact is based on the material
on record. We do not find any error in the finding
recorded by the Deputy Commissioner.
(f) The learned Single Judge, on a careful perusal of
the grant order recorded a finding that late Narasaiah has
purchased the schedule property in a public auction. The
said finding is based on analyzing the very grant order.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48530-DB
HC-KAR
We do not find any error in the said finding. Even
otherwise, we have recorded a clear finding that the
appellants have no right over the schedule property and
the sale and gift are effected after obtaining the
permission from the Competent Authority and in the
absence of any challenge to the permission granted by the
Authority for alienation, the legal heirs of late Narasaiah
cannot contend that the sale and gift deeds are in violation
of the Act and seek for resumption and restoration of the
land. Furthermore, the learned Single Judge held that the
schedule property is purchased by late Narasaiah in public
auction and the said finding is based on the material on
record. If that is so, the schedule property goes beyond
the purview of the Act. Hence, the question of seeking
permission, filing an application for restoration would not
arise.
(g) The learned Single Judge, considering the
pleadings, arguments advanced and the material on record
has come to the conclusion that the order of the Deputy
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48530-DB
HC-KAR
Commissioner does not call for any interference and
dismissed the petition. We do not find any error in the
said finding of the learned Single Judge calling for
interference in this intra Court appeal.
8. The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
