Karnataka High Court
M/S The Hamlet vs State Of Karnataka on 16 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22772
WP No. 26657 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.26657 OF 2024 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S THE HAMLET
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, NO.11,
KEMWELL HOUSE, TUMKUR ROAD,
YESHWANTHAPURA- 560022
REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER
MR. S.R. CHANDAK
2. SATTVA CITY PRIVATE LIMITED
FORMERLY KNOWN AS
NABS TECHPARK PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANY ACT, 2013
HAVING OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR,
SALARPURIA WINDSOR,
Digitally signed
by SHARMA 3, ULSOOR ROAD,
ANAND CHAYA
Location: HIGH
BENGALURU-560042,
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED
KARNATAKA
SIGNATORY
MR. ASHWIN SANCHETI
MANAGING DIRECTOR
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P.N.MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. VINAY N., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22772
WP No. 26657 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
MS BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
BENGALURU-560009.
3. MR. MUNAIAHA
S/O. LATE LACHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MEENUKUNTE VILLAGE,
DODDAJALA POST, JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK,
PRESENTLY YELAHANKA TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562157.
4. MR. ESHWARAPPA
S/O. LATE GUNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MEENUKUNTE VILLAGE,
DODDAJALA POST, JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK,
PRESENTLY YELAHANKA TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562157.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH BABURAO, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. T. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:22772
WP No. 26657 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE NOTICE DATED 26.08.2024 BEARING CASE ID. PTCL/YLK-
36/2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
K.SC.ST.PTCL/YLK-36/2024 PENDING BEFORE THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 (PRODUCED AS ANNX-X AND Y); AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the notice dated 26.08.2024, issued by the respondent No.2, and sought for quashing the proceedings in K.SC.ST.PTCL/YLK-36 of 2024 pending consideration before the respondent No.2 (Annexure-Y and X) respectively, inter-alia sought for direction to the respondent No.2 to restrain from proceeding further in K.SC.ST.PTCL/YLK-36 of 2024 (Annexure-Y and X). -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:22772 WP No. 26657 of 2024 HC-KAR
2. Relevant facts for the adjudication of this writ petition are that, the petitioners claim that the land bearing Sy.No. 45, measuring 05 acres, 03 guntas situate at Meenukunte Village, Yalahanka Taluk was partitioned by the children of one late Kondappa. Sri Lacchappa, son of late Kondappa and others had executed Sale Agreement dated 13.03.1996 in favour of the petitioner No.1 in respect of 03 acres, 02 guntas. Similarly, Smt. Muniyamma, wife of late Muniyappa and others had executed registered Sale Deed dated 13.03.1996 in favour of the petitioner No.1 in respect of 02 acres, 01 gunta in the said survey number. It is also stated that aforementioned Lachhappa and Smt. Muniyamma had made an application to the Spl. Deputy Commissioner seeking conversion of land in question and pursuant to the same, Spl. Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Bangalore District by Official Memorandum dated 09.08.1996 ordered for conversion -5- NC: 2025:KHC:22772 WP No. 26657 of 2024 HC-KAR of the land in question as per Annexure-A and B respectively. Thereafter, the original owners of the land Lachhppa and Muniyamma executed registered Sale Deed dated 31.01.1996 in favour of petitioner No.1 as per Annexure-C to G respectively. Pursuant to the execution of the registered Sale Deed, the revenue records mutated in favour of petitioner No.1. In the meanwhile, one Munaiah, son of late, Lachhappa i.e. respondent No.3, has filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (herein after referred to as 'PTCL Act') before the respondent No.2, seeking restoration of land in question and the said application came to be allowed by the respondent No.2, on 10.06.2008. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner No.1, has filed an appeal in K.SC.ST.(A) 50 of 2008-09 and Spl. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, by order -6- NC: 2025:KHC:22772 WP No. 26657 of 2024 HC-KAR dated 04.08.2010 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of resumption made by respondent No.2. Similarly, Smt. Muniyamma had filed W.P.No.24908 of 2010 before this court challenging the order passed by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner dated 04.08.2010 and the petitioner No.1 also filed W.P.No.16054 of 2011. This court by order dated 28.01.2013 allowed W.P.No.24908 of 2010 and W.P.No.16054 of 2011 and quashed the order passed by Appellate Authority and remanded the matter to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration. After remand, made by this Court, respondent No.2 by order dated 06.04.2015 dismissed the petition in K.SC.ST No.90/2007-08 and being aggrieved by the same, Smt. Muniyamma has preferred an appeal in SC.ST(A) 9/2015-016 which came to be dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner on 07.10.2016. The said order of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged in W.P.No.60483-84 of -7- NC: 2025:KHC:22772 WP No. 26657 of 2024 HC-KAR 2016 and the said petitions came to be dismissed on 16.12.2021. During the pendency of the said writ petition, question of law was referred to the larger Bench of this Court for consideration with reference made therein and accordingly, Full Bench of this court by order dated 05.07.2021 in W.P.No.60483-84 of 2016 (Annexure-H), held that, once the land is converted for non-agricultural purpose, the land loses its nature of granted land and held that protection of under Section 4(2) of PTCL Act is not available for the grantees. The order passed by the Full Bench of this court is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 28.01.2022 in SLP No.21079 of 2021 (Annexure-J). It is also to be noted that, in W.P.No.60483 of 2016 (Annexure-K) filed by the private respondents, came to be dismissed by this court on 16.12.2021 (Annexure-K), and the said order was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in -8- NC: 2025:KHC:22772 WP No. 26657 of 2024 HC-KAR W.A.No.383 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 (Annexure-L) and thereafter confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.50560 of 2023 (Annexure-M). The petitioners have also provided the series of other proceedings filed between the petitioners and amongst the respondents. In the meanwhile, the petitioner No.1 has executed registered Sale Deed dated 18.04.2024 in favour of the petitioner No.2 as per Annexure-N. It is also to be noted that, the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore by order dated 15.05.2024 (Annexure-P), has quashed the original conversion order dated 09.08.1996 and 05.09.1996 made in favour of the erstwhile owners of the petitioners herein belatedly, and the same was questioned in W.P.No.15250 of 2024 and same was allowed by this court on 27.01.2025. In the backdrop of these aspects, the private respondents herein have again approached respondent No.2 herein as per Annexure-X and in furtherance of the same, the -9- NC: 2025:KHC:22772 WP No. 26657 of 2024 HC-KAR respondent No.2 has issued notice dated 26.08.2024 as per Annexure-Y which is impugned in this writ petition.
3. I have heard Sri. P.N. Manmohan, along with Sri. Vinay. N., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Siddarth Babu Rao, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State and Sri. T. Prakash, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
4. Sri. P.N. Manmohan, and Sri. Vinay N., learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the land in question has been converted as per the order produced at Annexures-A and B as per the order made by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has no authority in law to quash the said orders of conversion as Deputy Commissioner become functus officio to pass order at Annexure-P and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22772 WP No. 26657 of 2024 HC-KAR accordingly, submitted that the this court has allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioners herein in W.P.No.15250 of 2024 dated 27.01.2025. He further contended that, the private respondents herein have invoked the provisions of resumption of land as per PTCL Act and the said order of resumption was interfered with by this court by the learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench of this court and same was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.21079 of 2021 and respondent-State also preferred Special Leave Petition in SLP (Civil)D. No.50560 of 2023 in same proceedings concerned and same came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 08.01.2024 (Annexure-M) and in that view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent No.2 has no authority under law to reverse the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22772 WP No. 26657 of 2024 HC-KAR Court and this court and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court to quash impugned notice.
5. It is further contended by Sri. P.N. Manmohan, learned counsel for the petitioners that, ones the proceedings with regard to resumption of land under PTCL Act has reached finality, the second petition before original authority is not maintainable and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.
6. In this regard, he places reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Narayanaswamy vs. The District Commissioner and others in W.A.No.3885 of 2019 disposed of on 06.11.2019 and in the case of Smt. Lakshmamma vs. The State of Karnataka and others in W.A. No.1627 of 2023 disposed of on 03.07.2024 and contended the respondent No.2 has no authority under law to issue notice to the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22772 WP No. 26657 of 2024 HC-KAR petitioners for the second time and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.
7. Per contra, Sri. T. Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4, has filed memo and referring to the same, he submitted that respondent Nos.3 and 4, are seeking leave of this court to withdraw the petition filed by them as per Annexure-X before the respondent No.2 in KSC/ST (PTCL) No. 36/2024. He further submitted that, in the event respondent Nos.3 and 4 are permitted to withdraw the petition filed before the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-X and nothing survive for consideration in this writ petition. He also contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had kept open the legal issue relating to whether the grant order of conversion by the Deputy Commissioner requires to be considered as the grantees have lost this right in respect of the granted land and it is open for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22772 WP No. 26657 of 2024 HC-KAR agitate their rights before the competent Authority/Forum.
8. Sri. Siddarth Baburao, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent- State sought to justify the notice produced at Annexures- Y.
9. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is required to reiterate that, the Rule of Law is the hallmark of the Constitution of India and, it is the duty of the executive to obey and follow the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in strict sense under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, on careful examination of the averments in the writ petition and having taken consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties would indicate that, Lachhappa and Muniyamma had made an
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22772 WP No. 26657 of 2024 HC-KAR application seeking conversion of land in question and Spl. Deputy Commissioner by order dated 09.08.1996 (Annexure-A) and 05.09.1996 (Annexure-B), passed an order for conversion of the land in question for the purpose of non-agriculture use. It is also to be noted that, Lachhappa and Muniyamma had executed registered Sale Deed dated 31.10.1996 in favour of petitioner No.1. It is also to be noted that son of late Lachhappa i.e. respondent No.3 herein, has approached the respondent No.2 seeking restoration of the land in question under the provisions of PTCL Act as the said land has been sold in violation of the terms of the conditions stated in the grant order and the respondent No.2 herein by order dated 10.06.2008 allowed the petition filed by the respondent No.3 in K.SC.ST.90 of 2007-08. The petitioner No.1, being aggrieved by the same, challenged the same before the Appellate Authority in K.SC.ST (A) 50 of 2008-09 and
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22772 WP No. 26657 of 2024 HC-KAR the Spl. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore by order dated 04.08.2010 allowed the appeal by the petitioner No.1 and set aside the order dated 10.06.2008 passed by the respondent No.2. Smt. Muniyamma and others have preferred petition in W.P.No.24908 of 2008 before this court, challenging the order dated 04.08.2010 passed by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner in the Appellate Authority jurisdiction and the petitioner No.1 has also filed petition W.P.No.16054 of 2011 and this court vide order dated 28.01.2013 allowed the petition filed by the petitioners and as such, quashed the order passed in K.SC.ST.90/2007-08 and as such, remanded the matter for fresh consideration. After remand made by this court, the respondent No.2, dismissed the petition in K.SC.ST.90/2007-08 and being aggrieved by the same, the said Muniyamma preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner in SC.ST(A) No.9 of 2015-16 and the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22772 WP No. 26657 of 2024 HC-KAR 07.10.2016 dismissed the appeal. The said order was challenged in W.P.No.60483-84 of 2016 and this court vide order dated 16.12.2021, dismissed the writ petition. It is also to be noted that, the question of law was referred to the Full Bench of this court as to whether the definition of the granted land 'as found in the PTCL Act only to the 'agricultural land' and it is also forthcoming from the order passed by this court at Annexure-R, wherein, the question was referred to the Full Bench whether the order of conversion under Section 95 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, can be construed as prior permission by the government satisfying the requirement under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, at paragraph this court has held that ones the permission for conversion of land is granted under Section 95 of the Act, by the Deputy Commissioner the aforesaid land looses it nature as granted land and therefore, the protection under Section 4(2) of the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22772 WP No. 26657 of 2024 HC-KAR PTCL is no longer available to the grantee. It is to be noted that the judgment of the Full Bench of this court produced at Annexure-R, was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.21079 of 2021 (Annexure-J). Thereafter the W.P.No.60483 of 2016 filed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein, challenging the order dated 06.04.2015 passed by the respondent No.2 herein came to be dismissed on 16.12.2021 (Annexure- K). It also to be noted that the order passed by the Single Judge was confirmed in WA No.383 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Annexure-L. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4 approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 50560 of 20213 (Annexure-M) and said petition came to dismissed. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1627 of 2023 dated 03.07.2024 and the order dated 06.11.2019 in W.A.No.3855 of 2019, wherein,
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22772 WP No. 26657 of 2024 HC-KAR Division Bench of this court has held that fresh petition /second petition on the same cause of action under Section 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act are not maintainable and same came to be confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In that view of the matter, following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases referred to above and Division Bench of this court, the respondent No.2 has committed a serious error at Annexure-X and issued the impugned notice at Annexure-Y in a concluded proceedings. It is to be noted that, respondent-authorities, being the quasi judicial authority are bound to obey the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this court and not empowered to issue notice mechanically, to the respondents without considering the settled principles of law. In that view of the matter, the petitioners have made out a case for interference by this court on the impugned notice issued by respondent No.2 in
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22772 WP No. 26657 of 2024 HC-KAR derogance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Division Bench of this court and as exercising its power un-judiciously and therefore, impugned notice issued to the petitioners herein requires to be set aside. Though the learned counsel for the respondents filed memo to withdraw the petition before the Respondent No.2, however, as observed above, Respondent No.2 has committed error is entertaining the second petition, in a concluded proceedings demonstrates the callousness on the part of the respondent No.2, and therefore, the memo is liable to be rejected as liberty is sought in the memo by the private respondents. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed;
ii) Notice dated 26.08.2024 (Annexure-Y),
issued by the respondent No.2 and
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22772
WP No. 26657 of 2024
HC-KAR
proceedings in K.SC.ST PTCL/YKL 36/2024 pending consideration before the respondent No.2 are quashed.
iii) Writ of probation is issued to the respondent No.2 not to proceed further with in K.SC.ST PTCL/YKL 36/2024 (Annexure-X and Y).
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62