Karnataka High Court
Sri Narayanapa vs Sri M H Bhaskar Reddy on 2 December, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:50421
WP No. 7180 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 7180 OF 2014 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NARAYANAPA
S/O CHIKKAVENKATA BHOVI @ VENKATA BHOVI
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/A YELLAMMANAPALYA VILLAGE
DODDA HAGADE DHAKALE
KASABA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 106.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V VISWANATH SETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. M H BHASKAR REDDY
S/O M H P SHIVAREDDY
Digitally AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
signed by
SREEDHARAN
BANGALORE
R/A NO.672, 17TH 'C' MAIN
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI
6TH BLOCK
Location: High KORAMANGALA
Court of
Karnataka BANGALORE - 560 034.
2. M/S. SHIVAJYOTHI TOWNSHIP
PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR. N.H. BHASKAR REDDY
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY
REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956
HAVING OFFICE AT
NO.698, 2ND FLOOR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:50421
WP No. 7180 of 2014
HC-KAR
29TH MAIN, BTM LAYOUT
2ND STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 096.
3. M/S AMRUTHA DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REP BY ITS PARTNERS
N H SARABHA REDDY
OFFICE AT NO.C-17
KUDUREMUKH COLONY
SARJAPURA ROAD, 2 ND BLOCK
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE - 560 034.
4. SRI. DHANALAKSHMI GLOBAL
CITY PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:
SHIVA KRUPA NO.61/68
N.R.I LAYOUT, KALKERE
BANGALORE - 560 043.
4(a) MR. R SHANKAR
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
4(b) MR. DHANALAKSHMI
W/O R SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
4(c) MR. SHIVAKUMAR
MAJOR IN AGE
4(d) MR. MOHAN MANOHAR MUNGALE
MAJOR IN AGE
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:50421
WP No. 7180 of 2014
HC-KAR
SL. NO. 4(a) to (d) ARE THE
MANAGING PARTNERS OF
SRI. DHANALAKSHMI GLOBAL
CITY PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:
SHIVA KRUPA NO.61/68
N R I LAYOUT
KALKERE
BANGALORE - 560 043.
5(a) MR. R SHANKAR
S/O LATE SRI RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
5(b) MRS. M S DHANALAKSHMI
W/O MR R SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
SL. NO.5(a) & (b) ARE
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS OF
M/S. SHUBHA PRAGATHI BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.64
OPP: MANJUNATHA NILAYA
KACHARKANAHALLI
HENNUR MAIN ROAD
ST. THOMAS TOWN POST
BANGALORE - 560 084.
6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SUB DIVISION
KANDAYA BHAVAN
K G ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 009.
7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:50421
WP No. 7180 of 2014
HC-KAR
BANGALORE DISTRICT
DISTRICT COMMISSIONER OFFICE
K G ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 009.
8. SHIVAJYOTHI & AMRUTH
TOWNSHIP'S WELFARE ASSOCIATION [R]
NO.12, BLOCK-B, SHIVAJYOTHI LAYOUT
DODDAHAGADE, KASABA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
MR. K.G. VALLABHA RAMU
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V SESHU, HCGP FOR R6 & R7;
SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R8;
R1, R2, R4(A TO D), R5(A & B) ARE SERVED;
R3 & R4(B) - NOTICE H/S V/O DATED.17/10/2019)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE
RECORDS IN SC.ST(A)/17/12-13 ON THE FILE OF 7 TH
RESPONDENT HEREIN UNDER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:50421
WP No. 7180 of 2014
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is being filed by the legal heirs of the grantee, calling in question the correctness of the order at Annexure - A dated 07.12.2023.
2. In terms of the order at Annexure - A, the appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner by the purchaser came to be allowed and the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 11.05.2012 came to be set aside. The order of the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure - B was an order passed at the instance of the legal representatives of the original grantee. The proceedings were initiated under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act), asserting that the land was granted land and the sale of land was in violation of provisions of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner, by his order had declared that the sale deeds as well as the joint development -6- NC: 2025:KHC:50421 WP No. 7180 of 2014 HC-KAR agreement in respect of land in Sy.No. 53 (New No.
92), measuring 5 acres 21 guntas situated at Doddahagade Village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, as being null and void and further direction was made to the Government to take over possession, free from all encumbrances and restore the same in favour of the original grantee.
3. It is to be noticed that the date of the sale deeds referred to in the conclusion portion of the order of the Assistant Commissioner has been wrongly mentioned as 27.02.1997 instead of 27.12.1997. Such an error would become apparent. On perusal of the sale deed dated 27.12.1997 enclosed along with a memo, which is a part of the record, the order of the Assistant Commissioner was however set aside by the order of the Deputy Commissioner on certain grounds and it is the order of the Deputy Commissioner that has been challenged in the writ petition.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:50421 WP No. 7180 of 2014 HC-KAR
4. The brief facts are that Chikka Venkata Bhovi, who is the father of the petitioner, is stated to be the original grantee. It is stated that the land came to be granted. It is submitted that sale deeds were executed by the grantees and a joint development agreement is also stated to have been entered into. The proceedings for cancellation of the sale deeds have been in violation of provisions of the PTCL Act came to be instituted in the year 2011-2012.
5. It must be noticed that for the purpose of application of provisions of the Act, the land has to be granted land in terms of Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act. As rightly pointed out by the counsel appearing for the subsequent purchaser from the respondent No.1 that the Full Bench of this Court in W.P No.60483/2016 has categorically held that once land is converted under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 it is to be treated to be diverted land and would no longer remain granted land. The Full Bench of this -8- NC: 2025:KHC:50421 WP No. 7180 of 2014 HC-KAR Court in W.P No.60483/2016 has observed in paragraph (D) at page Nos.28 and 29, as follows:
"(D) In the instant case, the statute namely PTCL, specifically provides that the permission for transfer/acquisition by transfer in respect of any granted land cannot be made except after obtaining prior approval of the Government.
Thus, the transfer/acquisition by transfer in granted land has to be made in the manner prescribed under Section 4(2) of the Act i.e. the special enactment and an order of conversion passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95(2) of the Act granted to an occupant of the land to use the land for purposes other than agriculture, cannot be construed as fulfillment of requirement under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. It is also noteworthy that competent authorities under both the provisions viz., Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act and under Section 95(2) of the Act are different, viz., the State Government and Deputy Commissioner respectively. The object and purpose of both the provisions contained in different enactment is entirely different. The scope of enquiry under both the provisions is entirely different. Both the aforesaid provisions operate in different fields. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:50421 WP No. 7180 of 2014 HC-KAR However, as we have already held that once the land is diverted, the same ceases to be a 'granted land' under the provisions of the PTCL Act. Therefore, in case of a diverted land, the requirement of obtaining the permission under Section 4(2) of the Act does not arise as the permission has to be obtained only in respect of 'granted land' and the land on conversion no longer remains 'granted land'. Therefore, the issue whether an order of conversion passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue act, 1964 can be construed as prior permission by the Government satisfying the requirements under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act does not arise in case of diverted lands. The aforesaid issue is therefore, answered accordingly."
6. This would make it clear that once land is diverted in terms of order under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the same would cease to be a granted land under the provisions of the PTCL Act. If that were to be so, the question of obtaining permission for sale under the provisions of the PTCL Act would not apply. The order of the Full Bench of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50421 WP No. 7180 of 2014 HC-KAR this Court was taken up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.21079/2021 and the said Special Leave to Appeal came to be rejected, affirming the order of the Full Bench. If that were to be so, the present writ petition would have to be rejected recording a finding that the land having been converted as per order of the Deputy Commissioner on 20.08.1997 and copy of the order of conversion filed along with synopsis on 24.10.2025 has resulted in change in the nature of land having been diverted in terms of order passed under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
7. It is further noticed that the sale deeds were dated 27.12.1997 with respect to an extent measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.92 and further sale deed on the same date of 27.12.1997 relating to further extent of 1 acre.
8. Admittedly, both the sale deeds were after the date of order of conversion. Proceedings before the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50421 WP No. 7180 of 2014 HC-KAR Assistant Commissioner came to be initiated only in the year 2011-2012.
9. In light of the land not being granted land, the question of entering into other aspects on merits would not arise. In the present case, it is also noticed that the order of conversion was also at the instance of the legal representative of the grantee, which fact is not controverted. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected and the order of the Deputy Commissioner is affirmed.
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45