Karnataka High Court
Sri Gurumurthy vs The Deputy Commissioner on 7 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:284
WP No. 20769 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.20769 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI GURUMURTHY
S/O LATE YALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
2. SMT.YALLAMMA
D/O LATE YALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
3. SRI.KRISHNA
S/O LATE YALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
4. SMT.RENUKA
D/O LATE YALLAPPA
Digitally signed by
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NAGARAJA B M
Location: HIGH 5. SMT.MUNIYAMMA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA D/O LATE YALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
6. SMT.LAKSHMI
D/O LATE YALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO.442
2ND STAGE, ULLAL POST
SONNENAHALLI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:284
WP No. 20769 of 2024
MARUTHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 095
(PETITIONER NO.1 - SENIOR CITIZEN
NOT CLAIMED ANY BENEFIT)
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
K.G.ROAD
BENGALURU 560009
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION
KANDHAYA BHAVANA
K G ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 009
3. THE TAHASILDAR
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
KANDHAYA BHAVANA
K G ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 009
4. SRI.RAMASWAMY
S/O LATE GIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
5. SRI.KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE GIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5
ARE R/AT KULUMEPALYA
JIGANI HOBLI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:284
WP No. 20769 of 2024
ANEKAL TALUK - 562 106
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT 562106
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DTD 2.01.2024 PASSED
BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DTD 2.01.2024 PASSED IN RP
NO.119/2014-15 (ANNX-D) R-1 AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL
ARBITRARY AND IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 300A OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY HAS
BEEN INFRINGED DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO GRANT ALL
THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS CONSEQUENT UPON QUASHING
THE ORDER AT ANNX-D AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
This captioned writ petition is filed by the legal heirs of original grantee, who are asserting their title, though the original grantee has sold the petition land under the registered sale deed dated 12.01.1970.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterating the grounds has vehemently argued and -4- NC: 2025:KHC:284 WP No. 20769 of 2024 contend that respondent No.4 has purchased the property without obtaining prior permission from respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner under Section 4A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act'). The grounds relating to violation of the provisions of the 'PTCL Act' cannot be looked into in the mutation proceedings.
3. Upon hearing the submissions of both learned counsel, it is fairly admitted that the petitioners herein had filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ("PTCL Act"), seeking restoration of the disputed lands. It is also an undisputed fact that the said application was rejected by Respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner. Subsequently, the petitioners have preferred an appeal under Section 5A of the PTCL Act, and the matter is presently pending adjudication before Respondent No.1 - -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:284 WP No. 20769 of 2024 the Deputy Commissioner. This sequence of events establishes that the statutory remedies provided under the PTCL Act are actively being pursued by the petitioners.
4. Considering this factual matrix, this Court is of the view that if the private respondents have acquired title to the lands in question under the registered sale deed dated 12.01.1970, they are entitled to retain their names in both the ownership column and the cultivator's column in the revenue records. However, this entitlement is not absolute and will remain subject to the outcome of the appeal pending before Respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner, under Section 5A of the PTCL Act. This Court emphasizes that any decision in the pending appeal will have a direct bearing on the rights and claims of both parties and must be addressed within the framework of the PTCL Act.
5. In light of the above, this Court finds it unnecessary to delve into the question of whether Respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner, while -6- NC: 2025:KHC:284 WP No. 20769 of 2024 deciding the appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, had properly verified whether notices were duly served on the petitioners. Even assuming there were procedural lapses in the service of notices, such issues are rendered inconsequential given the pendency of the appeal under the PTCL Act. The core issue is the determination of rights under the PTCL Act, which is currently under active consideration. Therefore, this Court does not deem it appropriate to grant any relief to the petitioners on this ground, as it would neither serve the ends of justice nor address the substantive issue of restoration under the PTCL Act.
6. It is clarified that nothing in this order shall hinder or restrict the petitioners from independently pursuing the appeal currently pending before Respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner, under Section 5A of the PTCL Act. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC:284 WP No. 20769 of 2024 In view of the observations made supra, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14