Karnataka High Court
Mr. Byla Anjinappa vs State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 2026
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:4242
WP No. 32195 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 32195 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. BYLA ANJINAPPA
SINCE DEDEASED BY HIS LR'S
1. SMT. HANUMAKKA
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,
W/O LATE BYLA ANJINAPA,
2. SMT. MUNIRAJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH,
3. SMT. ANJINAMMA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
Digitally signed D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH,
by JUANITA
THEJESWINI 4. SRI. RAVIKUMAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
KARNATAKA S/O LATE NARASIMHALAH,
5. SRI. MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH,
6. SMT. N.SHOBA
D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
ALL ARE R/A AVALAHALLI VILLAGE,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:4242
WP No. 32195 of 2025
HC-KAR
YELAHANKA HOBLI, YELAHANKA,
BANGALORE-560064.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VASANTHA LAKSHMI H V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
BANGALORE.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
BANGALORE.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
YELAHANKA TALUK,
BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR., AGA)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN
RESPECT OF THE LAND IN QUESTION FROM THE
RESPONDENTS, PERUSE THE SAME DIRECT TO QUASH THE
ORDER NO. RRT/2/NA/CR/753/08-09 DTD 22-01-2010 PASSED
BY THE R-2, FURNISHED AT ANNX-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:4242
WP No. 32195 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice of all the respondents.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier, when the legal heirs of the original grantee- Sri.Byla Anjinappa, filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-Division, in proceedings bearing No.K.SC.ST.No.50/2015-16 against the purchaser of the land, contending that the transfer was hit by the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ( for short, 'PTCL Act'), the Assistant Commissioner passed an order on 25.08.2016 holding that the lands granted to Sri.Byla Anjinappa in the year 1981 were transferred in violation of the provisions of sub-Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, without obtaining prior permission of the Government. Accordingly, the application was allowed and the sale transactions were -4- NC: 2026:KHC:4242 WP No. 32195 of 2025 HC-KAR held void and accordingly, directions were issued to resume and restore the lands in favour of the original grantee or his legal heirs. However, since the mutation entries were not made in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee, the petitioners have given a representation at Annexure-H dated 04.02.2025 to enter their names in the revenue records.
3. At this stage, an endorsement was issued at Annexure-J dated 25.04.2025 stating that the lands in question are gomal lands and therefore, the name of the petitioner cannot be mutated in the revenue records. Further, at the behest of the Tahsildar of Yelahanka Taluk, the Special Deputy Commissioner appears to have taken up proceedings suo motu under Section 136(3) read with Section 67(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and the Deputy Commissioner, without even issuing notice to the petitioners has proceeded to render a finding that in terms of the report of the Tahsildar, it is clear that the lands in question are gomal lands and there is no valid -5- NC: 2026:KHC:4242 WP No. 32195 of 2025 HC-KAR grant made in favour of any person. However, it is found that the name of Smt.Mulibai Nan vani, who was in fact the subsequent purchaser, was entered in the revenue records in terms of M.R.No.45/2003-2004. The Deputy Commissioner has proceeded to direct the Tahsildar to resume the said land measuring 2 Acres in Survey No.79/P368 situated at Avalahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk, now Yelahanka Taluk, to the government free from all encumbrances by evicting those who are in occupation for possession of the same in accordance with law.
4. Learned Counsel submits that such an order could not have been passed without issuing notice to the petitioners. Moreover, when a finding is already recorded by the Assistant Commissioner in the proceedings under the PTCL Act that late Sri.Byla Anjinappa was granted the lands in violation of the provisions contained in Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, which requires prior permission of the government for the purchaser to purchase the -6- NC: 2026:KHC:4242 WP No. 32195 of 2025 HC-KAR property, it is not open for the respondents now to say that there was no grant made in favour of Sri.Byla Anjinappa, these are contrary statements.
5. There is substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The respondent authorities cannot blow hot and cold. It is the finding of the Assistant Commissioner in a duly constituted proceeding under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, that Sri. Sanjivaiah was granted 2 Acres of land, waiving the upset price as per Government Notification No.RD 11 LGP 76 dated 08.09.1980. Mutation entries were also carried out accordingly in favour of Sri.Byla Anjinappa in M.R.No.26/1981-1982. Such being the case, the respondent authorities, namely the Tahsildar and the Deputy Commissioner, have fallen into grave error in initiating proceedings, and that too without issuing notice to the legal heirs of late Sri.Byla Anjinappa. The respondent shown in the impugned order is Smt.Mulibai -7- NC: 2026:KHC:4242 WP No. 32195 of 2025 HC-KAR Nan vani, who is the purchaser and not the original grantee or his legal heirs.
6. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that initiation of proceedings by the Special Deputy Commissioner invoking Section 136(3) is illegal and unsustainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annexure-A dated 22.01.2010 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division in proceedings bearing No.RRT(2)(NA)CR/753/2008-09 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-Tahsildar, Yelahanka Taluk, is hereby directed to proceed to find out who are the legal heirs of the original grantee Sri.Byla Anjinappa, and restore their names in the revenue records. The same shall be complied with as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:4242 WP No. 32195 of 2025 HC-KAR
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL CT: JL