Smt. Veeramma @ Chikkaveeramma vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 9354 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Veeramma @ Chikkaveeramma vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 October, 2025

Author: R Devdas

Bench: R Devdas

                          -1-
                                                          R
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

                        BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS

      WRIT PETITION NO. 15226 OF 2023 (SC-ST)


BETWEEN

SMT. VEERAMMA @ CHIKKAVEERAMMA
W/O LATE MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
R/AT INDRASHANAHALLI,
HOSUR VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -562110.
                                          ...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SUSHEELA S. SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
    SRI. CHETHAN B C., ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      REVENUE DEPARTMENT
      REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
      M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
      BANGALORE 560001.

2.    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
      BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
      DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION OFFICE,
      FIRST FLOOR, BEEDASANDRA VILLAGE,
      KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
      BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562110.

3.    THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
      DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION,
      DODDABALLAPURA 561203.
                                -2-


        LATE NANJUNDAPPA
        (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
        RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 7

LATE EERAMMA, (SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS RESPONDENT WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD)

4. SRI NAGARAJ S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

5. SMT MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

6. SRI HANUMAPPA S/O LATE NAJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

SMT CHINNA AKKAYAMMA W/O LATE THIMMAIAH, (SINCE DEAD NO LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES)

7. SRI NAGAIAH, S/O LATE EERA THIMMAIAH, (SINCE DEAD REP BY HIS LRS RESPONDENTS NO.7(a) TO 7(c))

7(a). SMT. SUBBALAKASHAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS W/O LATE NAGAIAH

7(b). SMT. SHRUTHI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS D/O LATE NAGAIAH

7(c). SRI. SREEKANTH AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS S/O LATE NAGAIAH

LATE NAGAPPA S/O LATE EERA THIMMAIAH (SINCE DEAD REP.BY RESPONDENTS NO 9 & 10)

8. SMT GOPAMMA, W/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

9. SMT NAGARATHNAMMA D/O LATE NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

LATE NARAYANAPPA (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS RESPONDENTS NO 11 TO 12)

10 . SMT VENKATALAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS RESPONDENT NO 10(a) & 10(b))

10(a). SRI. SRINIVAS S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

10(b). SRI. PRAKASH S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 11 . SRI. NAGESH S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS RESPONDENT NO 11(a) & 11(c))

11.(a) SMT. ROOPA W/O LATE NAGESH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

11.(b) SRI. NAYAN KUMAR S/O LATE NAGESH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

11.(c) SRI. NANDAN KUMAR S/O LATE NAGESH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

12 . SMT RAMAKKA W/O LATE SUBBARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

13 . SRI MUNIKRISHNA S/O LATE SUBBARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

RESPONDENTS NO. 4 TO 13 ARE R/AT INDRESHANAHALLI HOSURU VILLAGE, KUNDANAHALLI HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK 562110.

14 . SRI B G UDAY S/O B N GARUDACHAR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO 78/1, NEW K R ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU 560004.

15 . SRI BASAVARAJU S/O M BASAVANNA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO 12, 308, 3RD FLOOR, RAHEJA CHAMBER, MUSEUM ROAD, BENGALURU 560001.

16 . SRI RITESH KUMAR GUPTA S/O SRI ALOKE KUMAR GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO 302, EDEN PARK, NO 20, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU 560001 ......RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. ARUNA G.S., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. R. KIRAN., ADVOCATE FOR R4-R6, R8, R9, R13, R7(A-C), R10(A-B), R11(A-C) SRI. H.S.DWARAKANATH., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MITHUN S.K., ADVOCATE FOR R16 SRI. S.KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND., ADVOCATE FOR R14 NOTICE TO R12 & R15 DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 23/07/2025)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 29.05.2023 PASSED BY THE R2-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO. LND/SC-ST (APPEAL) 18/2017 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 11.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS)

The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order at

Annexure-L dated 29.05.2023 passed by the second

respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District,

Bengaluru, in PTCL proceedings bearing No.LND/SC.ST

(Appeal) 18/2017.

2. Learned Senior Counsel Smt. S. Susheela, appearing

for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an

application before the third respondent-Assistant

Commissioner invoking Section 5 of The Karnataka

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of

Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'PTCL Act')

seeking a declaration that the sale deeds dated 21.06.2006

and 12.10.2006 executed by Sri B.G.Uday, respondent

No.14 herein, as power of attorney holder in favour of Sri

Basavaraj, respondent No.15, is null and void and

consequently to resume and restore the lands bearing

Sy.No.7, New Sy. No.7/P12, measuring 4.00 Acres situated

at Thindlu village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk,

Bengaluru Rural District, in favour of the petitioner, who is

the legal heir of the original grantee-Smt.Nagamma.

3. The Assistant Commissioner accepted the fact that

the land in question was granted in favour of Smt.Nagamma

on 11.11.1947 under Order bearing No.56/1946-47, which

was a re-grant. It was found that respondent No.14 herein,

on the basis of a concocted General Power of Attorney,

executed sale deed dated 21.06.2006 and sold the property

in favour of respondent No.15-Sri.M.B.Basavaraj.

Respondent No.15 in turn sold the property in favour of

respondent No.16 under registered sale deed dated

12.10.2006. It was held that the sale of granted land being

after commencement of the Act, was in violation of Section

4(2) of the Act which mandates prior permission at the

hands of the State Government. It was found that no such

permission was granted by the State Government in terms of

Section 4(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assistant

Commissioner allowed the application and directed

resumption of the lands to the Government and directed

restoration of the same in favour of the legal heirs of the

original grantee.

4. However in appeal, the Deputy Commissioner held

that although it is true that the lands were granted to

Smt.Nagamma, who is a person belonging to the Scheduled

Caste community, nevertheless the grant was for a reduced

upset price of Rs.25/- and therefore the grant was not a free

grant. The Deputy Commissioner further held that if the

contention of the petitioner is accepted, then, since the

petitioner nor any of the legal heirs of Smt.Nagamma has

sold the property, then there is no transfer as defined in the

Act and therefore the petitioner will have to approach a

competent Civil Court to redress her grievance. The Deputy

Commissioner held that it is for the petitioner to prove that

she is the sole surviving legal heir of Smt.Nagamma and get

a declaration that the sale deed is not binding on her. In

that view of the matter, the Deputy Commissioner allowed

the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the Assistant

Commissioner.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Smt.S.Susheela,

appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy

Commissioner has overlooked settled position of law. It is

submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of

Guntaiah and Others Vs. Hambamma and Others

reported in (2005) 6 SCC 228 has held that once conditions

are imposed by the granting authority stipulating non-

alienation clause, the subsequent purchaser cannot contend

that such conditions could not have been imposed, either on

the ground that a price was stipulated and collected by the

granting authority or on any other such grounds including

the contention that the land was granted under Grow More

Food Scheme (under Rule 43-G of the Mysore Land Revenue

Rules). It was held that the Government, while granting

lands can impose any conditions which are permissible under

law. It does not lie in the mouth of the subsequent

purchaser to contend that since the lands were granted for a

particular price, they do not fit into the definition of the term

'granted land' as defined in the Act.

6. Insofar as the finding of the Deputy Commissioner

that since it is contended by the petitioner that she has not

sold the property nor have any of the legal heirs of the

original grantee sold the property in favour of the

respondents, the matter cannot be considered under the

provisions of the PTCL Act and that the petitioner will have to

approach a competent Civil Court, learned Senior Counsel

submitted that such a finding is in contravention of the

express provisions of the Act. Attention of this Court is

drawn to Section 4 and Section 5 of the Act to contend that

the express provisions mandate the authority to consider an

application, even if it is filed by an interested person and suo

motu powers being conferred on the Assistant Commissioner

to declare any such transfer as null and void, if the transfer

is in contravention of the terms of the grant or in

contravention of sub-section (2) of Section 4 which

mandates prior permission from the Government to transfer

such granted lands, after the commencement of the Act.

7. Per contra, learned Counsel Sri H.S.Dwarakanath,

appearing for Sri Mithun S.K., learned Counsel for

respondent No.16 sought to support the impugned order

passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Learned counsel

submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of

Pedda Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka & Others, reported

in ILR 1993 KAR 551 had held that the Assistant

Commissioner cannot declare the sale of the granted land as

void, unless he records a finding that the grant was either on

upset price or a free grant or for a price less than upset

price. The Deputy Commissioner is therefore right in his

opinion that since the lands were granted for a price, which

is said to be reduced upset price, the grant cannot be

considered as a free grant. Learned counsel further

contended that since the petitioner has clearly contended

that neither she nor any of the legal heirs of the original

grantee sold the property in favour of the respondents, then

since the petitioner has not transferred the lands in favour of

the respondents, the provisions of the Act do not get

attracted. The Deputy Commissioner has rightly directed the

petitioner to approach a competent Civil Court to get a

declaration that the sale deed is not binding on the

petitioner.

8. The other learned counsels for the respondents have

supported the submission of the learned counsel Sri

H.S.Dwarakanath.

9. Heard learned Senior Counsel Smt. S. Susheela for

the petitioner, learned Counsel Sri H.S.Dwarakanath for

respondent No.16, Sri S. Krishna, learned Counsel for

respondent No.14, learned High Court Government Pleader

for the official respondents and perused the petition papers.

10. Learned Senior Counsel Smt. S. Susheela is right

in her submission that the decision of the Division Bench of

this Court in the case of Pedda Reddy (supra) and a

decision of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of

Hambamma and Others Vs. The State of Karnataka &

Others, reported in 1998 SCC OnLine Kar 162 have been

watered down by the decision of the Apex Court in the case

of Guntaiah and Others (supra). A Full Bench of this Court

while considering the case in Hambamma and Others Vs.

The State of Karnataka & Others (supra) was of the view

that if the land is granted under Rule 43-G, there could not

have been any condition imposed restricting the alienation

and if at all there were any such conditions they are null and

void. The Apex Court however held that the view taken by

the Full Bench of this Court was for the reason that

conditions restricting alienations are given under Clause (4)

of Rule 43-G (popularly known as 'Grow More Food Scheme')

and these provisions would apply to grant of lands made

under the preceding Rules viz., Rule 43-J and shall not apply

to Rule 43-G which comes after Rule 43-J of the Rules of

1960. However, the Apex Court held that the title of the

land primarily vests with the Government. The Government

while granting the lands, can impose any conditions which

are permissible under law. The lands are granted either free

of cost or at a price which is less than the full market price.

It is not an outright sale made by the Government for full

consideration.

11. It was held that the history of the legislation also

would show that the State of Karnataka has all along been

giving lands to landless persons belonging to Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes subject to restriction on

alienation of such land. The Government being the

paramount titleholder is empowered to impose any condition

which is not against the law and it is binding on the

grantees. All grants are made under the general provisions

of the Rules and the provisions empower the Government to

impose conditions. It was therefore held that when the

Rules provide for imposition of such conditions and the

conditions are accepted by the grantee, a subsequent

purchaser cannot contend that such conditions could not

have been imposed. It was therefore held that the

prohibition regarding alienation is a restrictive covenant

binding on the grantee. The grantee is not challenging that

condition. It was noticed that in all these proceedings,

challenge is made by the third party who purchased the land

from the grantee. It was therefore held that the third party

is not entitled to say that the conditions imposed by the

grantor to the grantee were void.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Guntaiah's case (supra)

in paragraph No.14 has captured the law laid down in

paragraph No.17 of Manchegowda Vs. State of

Karnataka and Others reported in (1983) 3 SCC 301

which reads as follows:

"17. Granted lands were intended for the benefit and enjoyment of the original grantees who happen to belong to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. At the time of the grant, a condition had been imposed for protecting the interests of the original grantees in the granted lands by restricting the transfer of the same. The condition regarding the prohibition on transfer of such granted lands for a specified period, was imposed by virtue of the specific term in the grant itself or by reason of any law, rule or regulation governing such grant. It was undoubtedly open to the grantor at the time of granting lands to the original grantees to stipulate such a condition, the condition being a term of the grant itself, and the condition was imposed in the interests of the grantee. Except on the basis of such a condition the grantor might not have made any such grant at all. The condition imposed against the transfer for a particular period of such granted lands which were granted essentially for the benefit of the grantees cannot be said to constitute any unreasonable restriction. The granted lands were not in the nature of properties acquired and held by the grantees in the sense of acquisition, or holding of property within the meaning of Article 19 of the Constitution. It was a case of a grant by the owner of the land to the grantee for the possession and enjoyment of the granted lands by the grantees and the prohibition on transfer of such granted lands for the

specified period was an essential term or condition on the basis of which the grant was made. It has to be pointed out that the prohibition on transfer was not for an indefinite period or perpetual. It was only for a particular period, the object being that the grantees should enjoy the granted lands themselves at least for the period during which the prohibition was to remain operative. Experience had shown that persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to whom the lands were granted were, because of their poverty, lack of education and general backwardness, exploited by various persons who could and would take advantage of the sad plight of these poor persons for depriving them of their lands. The imposition of the condition of prohibition on transfer for a particular period could not, therefore, be considered to constitute any unreasonable restriction on the right of the grantees to dispose of the granted lands. The imposition of such a condition on prohibition in the very nature of the grant was perfectly valid and legal."

13. It is further held in Guntaiah's case at paragraph

No.15, which reads as follows:

"15. The conditions restricting alienation imposed by the authorities are legally valid and the finding of the Full Bench to the contrary is not correct and the impugned Judgment is thus not sustainable in law. The impugned Judgment is set aside, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld and these appeals are allowed.

The authorities shall take appropriate steps pursuant to the order passed by the authorities under the Act 2 of 1979 within a period of three months. There will be no order as to costs."

14. Thus, the decision of the Apex Court in Guntaiah

has watered down the directions issued by the Division

Bench in Pedda Reddy (supra). The authorities need not

go into the question as to whether the lands were granted

free of cost or for upset price or reduced upset price or full

consideration. Once conditions of non alienation are

imposed in the grant, which can be found in the grant

certificate/saguvali chit, the grantee and a subsequent

purchaser would be bound by such conditions. Having

regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court, the purchaser

shall not be permitted to contend that the land is not a

granted land as defined in the Act, on the ground that the

land was not granted free of cost or that it was granted at an

upset price or reduced upset price or that it was granted

under the 'Grow More Food Scheme' under Rule 43-G or any

other such grounds. Such contentions, if raised, shall be

rejected.

15. Moreover, in the facts and circumstances of the

present case, what is attracted is Section 4(2) of the Act,

namely, that no prior permission has been secured before

the lands granted to Smt. Nagamma, a person belonging to

Scheduled Caste Community, could be transferred. In that

regard, the respondents have never contended that they

secured prior permission at the hands of the Government.

In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by

the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained.

16. Insofar as the other contention of the respondents

that since the petitioner contends that she has not executed

the sale deed in favour of respondent No.14 and therefore,

there is no transfer from the petitioner and therefore, the

provisions of the PTCL Act are not attracted, in a recent

decision of this Court in the case of A. Vijayakumar Vs.

State of Karnataka & Others in W.P.No.25228/2022 dated

23.10.2025, this Court has held as follows:

"10. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.5, Section 4 of the PTCL Act mandates the voiding of any transfer which is in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant or sub-section (2) of Section

4 of the PTCL Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 4 applies the provision in sub-sections (1) and (2) to sale of any granted land in execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court or of any award or order of any other authority. The overarching provision encompasses any such transaction and therefore the provision has to be read in conjunction with the avowed objective of the PTCL Act. It is also necessary to notice that sub-section (1) of Section 5 provides that any interested person can file an application invoking Section 5 or even on an information given in writing by any person, the competent authority, namely, the Assistant Commissioner is required to take action. Moreover, suo motu powers are conferred on the Assistant Commissioner to hold an enquiry as he deems necessary and if he is satisfied that the transfer of any granted land is null and void under sub-section (1) of Section 4, he may pass necessary orders and take possession of such lands after evicting all persons in possession thereof. Sub- section (3) of Section 5 clearly provides that for the purpose of Section 5, if such granted lands are in possession of a person other than the original grantee or his legal heir, it shall be "presumed", that such person has acquired the land by a transfer which is null and void. The burden is therefore on the petitioner to prove that he is in possession of the land in question, lawfully. "Lawfully" would mean the person in possession has purchased the granted land

without violating the conditions of the grant and by securing prior permission of the Government (if the transfer is after the commencement of the PTCL Act). In the present context, it is for the petitioner to prove that the petitioner has purchased the property after securing prior permission at the hands of the State Government since the transfer is after the commencement of the PTCL Act and the transfer is in compliance of the requirements in terms of Section 4(2) of the Act. It is clear that the petitioner has not secured prior sanction of the Government in terms of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act and therefore the transfer is void.

11. There is no doubt a dispute as to whether the 5th respondent is one of the legal heirs of late Sri Poojiga and/or whether the persons who transferred the land in favour of the petitioner are the legal heirs of late Sri Poojiga. That issue need not be gone into in a proceeding initiated under Section 5 of the Act, since any interested person can initiate the proceedings under Section 5. The Deputy Commissioner has rightly directed the Tahasildar to hold an enquiry to find out as to who are the legal heirs of late Sri Poojiga and thereafter restore the lands in their favour. If a competent Civil Court has already rendered such a finding, then the Tahasildar shall take note of the same."

17. The Assistant Commissioner, having found that the

petitioner/purchaser nor the seller had obtained prior

permission in terms of Section 4(2) of the Act, rightly

allowed the application and directed resumption of the lands

to the Government and further directed restoration of the

land in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee.

18. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The

impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in

proceedings bearing No.LND/SC-ST (Appeal) 18/2017 dated

29.05.2023 at Annexure 'L' is hereby quashed and set aside.

Ordered accordingly.

19. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

Sd/-

(R DEVDAS) JUDGE BVV/JT/-

CT: JL