Karnataka High Court
Mr. H R Suresh vs State Of Karnataka on 24 January, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
WP No. 13200 of 2023
C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023
WP No. 13239 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
®
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 13200 OF 2023
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 13192 OF 2023
WRIT PETITION NO. 13239 OF 2023 (SCST)
IN W.P.No. 13200 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
1 . MR. H R SURESH
S/O LATE H.K. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT 'SHRESTA'
NO. 1, JAKKUR MAIN ROAD
JAKKUR POST
BENGALURU - 560 064
Digitally ...PETITIONER
signed by (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
KIRAN
KUMAR R SRI. SANJAY KRIHSNA.V., ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
MULTISTORIED BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU 560 001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
WP No. 13200 of 2023
C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023
WP No. 13239 of 2023
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH DIVISION
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 009.
4. TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK
TALUK OFFICE, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU - 560 064.
5. MR. A.J. JAMES
S/O A.C.JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 576, 4TH CROSS,
HMT LAYOUT R.T.NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 032.
6. MRS. ANCY JAMES
W/O A.J. JAMES
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 576,
4TH CROSS, HMT LAYOUT,
R.T. NGAR
BENGALURU - 560 032.
7. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
W/O LATE B.M. GOVINDRARAJU
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
8. SRI.BHASKAR
S/O LATE B.M. GOVINDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
9. SRI. SHASHIDHAR (A.K.A.B.G KUMAR)
S/O LATE B.M.GOVINDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
WP No. 13200 of 2023
C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023
WP No. 13239 of 2023
10 . SRI.B.M. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O SRI. B.H. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
11 . SMT. M.N. KUSUMA
D/O SRI. B.M. NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
12 . SRI. B.N. MOHAN KUMAR
S/O SRI. B.M. NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R-7 TO 12 ALL ARE RESIDING AT
BETTAHALASURU VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI,
YELAHANKA NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562157.
13 . SMT. GOWRAMMA
D/O LATE KORAMARA VENKATAMMA
W/O D.N. LAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
RESIDING AT. NO. 127, 2ND FLOOR
KEMPANNA BUILDING
NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.
14 . KUM. ASHWINI
D/O LATE NARAYANAMMA AND
HANUMANTHAPPA AND
GRANDDAUGHTER OF
SMT. BYLAMMA AND LATE RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT KAKOLU VILLAGE,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560089.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
WP No. 13200 of 2023
C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023
WP No. 13239 of 2023
15 . KUM. MANJI
D/O LATE NARAYANAMMA AND
HANUMANTHAPPA
GRANDDAUGHTER OF SMT. BYLAMMA AND
LATE RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT.
KAKOLU VILLAGE,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560089.
16 . SMT. NANJAMMA
D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY AND BYLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT KAKOLU VILLAGE,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560089.
17 . SMT. MEENA
D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY AND BYLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT KAKOLU VILLAGE,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560089.
18 . SMT. SARITA
D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY AND BYLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT KAKOLU VILLAGE,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560089.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA, FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI.A.J.JAMES, R-5 (PARTY IN PERSON) AND ALSO FOR R-6;
SRI. PRABHUGOUD B THUMBIGI, ADVOCATE FOR R-7 TO R-9;
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 SRI. ESWARA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R-10 TO 12; SRI. S.T.JUNJAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R-13 TO 18) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 22.05.2023, PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THE R-2 HEREIN IN PTCL 53/2022, PTCL 54/2022 AND PTCL 61/2022, SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 HEREIN DATED:21.02.2019 IN KSC.ST.(BNA)44/2011-12 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ETC.
IN W.P.No. 13192 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
1 . MR. H R SURESH S/O LATE H.K. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT. SHRESTA NO. 1, JAKKUR MAIN ROAD JAKKUR POST BENGALURU - 560 064 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SANJAY KRISHNA.V., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MULTISTORIED BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU 560 001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT KEMPEGOWDA ROAD -6- NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH DIVISION KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009.
4. TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK TALUK OFFICE, YELAHANKA BANGALURU - 560 064.
5. MR.A.J. JAMES S/O A.C. JOSEPH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 576, 4TH CROSS, HMT LAYOUT, R.T.NAGAR BENGALURU - 560032.
6. MRS.ANCY JAMES W/O A.J.JAMES AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NO. 576, 4TH CROSS, HMT LAYOUT, R.T.NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 032.
7. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O LATE B.M. GOVINDRARAJU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
8. SRI. BHASKAR S/O LATE B.M. GOVINDRARAJU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
9. SRI. B.G.KUMAR S/O LATE B.M. GOVINDRARAJU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R-7 TO 9 ALL ARE RESIDING AT -7- NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 BETTAHALASURU VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA NORTH (ADDL.)TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 089.
10 . SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O LATE KORAMARA VENKATAMMA W/O D.N.LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RESIDING AT . NO.127, 2ND FLOOR KEMPANNA BUILDING NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064 11 . KUM. ASHWINI D/O LATE NARAYANAMMA AND HANUMANTHAPPA AND GRANDDAUGHTER OF SMT. BYLAMMA AND LATE RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 25 YERS 12 . KUM. MANJI D/O LATE NARAYANAMMA AND HANUMANTHAPPA AND GRANDDAUGHTER OF SMT. BYLAMMA AND LATE RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 23 YERS 13 . SMT.NANJAMMA D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY AND BYLAMMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 14 . SMT. MEENA D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY AND BYLAMMA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 15 . SMT. SARITA D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY AND BYLAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS -8- NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 R-11 TO R-15 ALL ARE RESIDING AT KAKOLU VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
16 . SRI. B.M. NARAYANASWAMY S/O SRI. B.H.MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 17 . SMT. M.N.KUSUMA D/O SRI. B.H.MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 18 . SRI. B.N. MOHAN KUMAR S/O SRI.B.M. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R-16 TO 18 ARE RESIDING AT BETTAHALASURU VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA NHORTH (ADDL.) TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 089.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 TO 4; SRI. A.J.JAMES, R-5 (PARTY IN PERSON) & ALSO FORR-6; SRI.PRABHUGOUD B.THUMBIGI, ADVOCATE FOR R-7TO 9; SRI. S.T.JUNJAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R-10 TO 15; SRI. ESWARA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R-16 TO 18) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 22.05.2023 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN IN PTCL 53/2022, PTCL 54/2022 AND PTCL 61/2022, SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN DATED:21.02.2019 IN KSC ST (BNA) 44/2011-12 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ETC. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 IN W.P.No. 13239 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
1 . MR. H R SURESH S/O LATE H.K. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING ATN. 'SHRESTA' NO. 1, JAKKUR MAIN ROAD JAKKUR POST BENGALURU - 560 064 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.SANJAY KRISHNA.V.,ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MULTISTORIED BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU 560 001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH DIVISION KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009.
4. TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK TALUK OFFICE, YELAHANKA BENGALURU - 560 064.
5. MR. A.J. JAMES
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 S/O A.C.JOSEPH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 576, 4TH CROSS, HMT LAYOUT R.T.NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 032.
6. MRS. ANCY JAMES W/O A.J. JAMES AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 576, 4TH CROSS, HMT LAYOUT, R.T. NGAR BENGALURU - 560 032.
7. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O LATE B.M. GOVINDRARAJU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
8. SRI.BHASKAR S/O LATE B.M. GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
9. SRI. SHASHIDHAR (A.K.A.B.G KUMAR) S/O LATE B.M.GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 10 . SRI.B.M. NARAYANASWAMY S/O SRI. B.H. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 11 . SMT. M.N. KUSUMA D/O SRI. B.M. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 12 . SRI. B.N. MOHAN KUMAR S/O SRI. B.M. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R-7 TO 12 ALL ARE RESIDING AT
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 BETTAHALASURU VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562157. 13 . SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O LATE KORAMARA VENKATAMMA W/O D.N. LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RESIDING AT. NO. 127, 2NDFLOOR KEMPANNA BUILDING NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.
14 . KUM. ASHWINI D/O LATE NARAYANAMMA AND HANUMANTHAPPA AND GRANDDAUGHTER OF SMT. BYLAMMA AND LATE RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT KAKOLU VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560089. 15 . KUM. MANJI D/O LATE NARAYANAMMA AND HANUMANTHAPPA GRANDDAUGHTER OF SMT. BYLAMMA AND LATE RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDING AT.
KAKOLU VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560089. 16 . SMT. NANJAMMA D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY AND BYLAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT KAKOLU VILLAGE,
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560089. 17 . SMT. MEENA D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY AND BYLAMMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT KAKOLU VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560089. 18 . SMT. SARITA D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY AND BYLAMMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT KAKOLU VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560089.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA, FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI.A.J.JAMES, R-5 (PARTY IN PERSON) AND R-6; SRI. PRABHUGOUD B THUMBIGI, ADVOCATE FOR R-7 TO R-9;
SRI. ESWARA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R-10 TO 12; SRI. S.T.JUNJAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R-13 TO 18) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 22.05.2023 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN IN PTCL 53/2022, PTCL 54/2022 AND PTCL 61/2022, SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN DATED 21.02.2019 IN KSC ST (BNA) 44/2011-12 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 19.12.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CAV ORDER Table of Contents I. Chronology of facts ascertained from the pleadings, submissions and records..................................................................................... 13 II. Contentions..................................................................................................... 42 III. Points for consideration: ............................................................................. 46 IV. Re: the 1st point ............................................................................................. 47 V. Re: the 2nd, 3rd and 4th points -- applicability of the PTCL Act to the lands in question ............................................................................... 60 I. CHRONOLOGY OF FACTS ASCERTAINED FROM THE PLEADINGS, SUBMISSIONS AND RECORDS:
1. On 11.04.1942, the then General and Revenue Department of the Government of Mysore, issued an order in the background of the fact that there was a shortage in the production of food and fodder. In order to incentivise and increase the production, it was decided to put the unoccupied irrigateable lands, which had not been put to cultivation, to use
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 by permitting the Deputy Commissioner to lease them out for a period of not exceeding three years, with concession in the payment of assessment to facilitate temporary cultivation of paddy. The order also stated that the persons who would bring the lands under cultivation would also have the option of purchasing the lands for a reasonable upset price at the end of the period of lease.
2. On 13.06.1942, i.e., about two months from the aforementioned order, the Government issued another order, taking note of the fact that the farmers were not enthused about the prospect of taking the lands on lease only for three years and in making considerable investments, since they apprehended that they would be called upon to pay an upset price on the basis of the improvements that they had made to the land. By this order, the Government made it clear that the upset price to be fixed would not exceed the market value of the land
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 at the time it had been given out for cultivation and if possible, the upset price should be intimated to them, in advance i.e., when permission was granted to them to cultivate the lands.
3. On 30.06.1942 i.e., within about 17 days of the aforementioned order, the Government issued another order sanctioning further concessions in the matter of tenure of the lease and payment of assessment. The Government decided to grant tenure of five years for the lease and stated that the first two years would be free of assessment, the third and fourth years would be half assessment and the fifth year would be full assessment.
4. On the basis of these orders, lands to the extents ranging from 06 acres to 02 acres in land bearing Sy.No.259 were permitted to be cultivated by 25 persons from the years ranging from 1942-43 to 1951-52, as could be gathered from document No.3 to the affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, Yelahanka
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 dated 16.12.2024. In this document, the following entries, which would be relevant for these cases, are extracted as under:
zÀgÀ MlÄÖ zÀgÀSÁ¸ÀÄÛ ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ «¹ÛÃtð ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ ¸ÀܼÀ PÀļÀUÀ¼À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ¸Á®Ä *** *** *** ***
17. DAd£À¥Àà 2-0 51-52 *** *** *** ***
22. PÉÆgÀªÀÄgÀ ªÉAPÀlªÀÄä 2-0 51-52 ¨ÉlÖºÀ®¸ÀÆgÀÄ
5. As could be seen from the above, both Anjanappa and Koramara Venkatamma were permitted to cultivate an extent of 02 acres each in Sy.No.259 from the year 1951-52.
6. The sketch enclosed with this affidavit and a colour photocopy, which is filed along with another affidavit dated 18.12.2024, state that a total extent of 82 acres in Sy.No.259 was the subject matter of grants under the Grow More Food Scheme (i.e., under the above-mentioned three Government Orders) [for short, "the GMF Scheme"] and an extent of 04
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 acres was the subject matter of grants to depressed classes.
7. In this sketch also, Sy.No.259/18 is shown to be granted to Anjanappa and Sy.No.259/22 is shown to be granted to Koramara Venkatamma. The location of the lands with reference to their serial numbers i.e., Nos.18 and 22 are also demarcated in the sketch. Sl.No.22 is located on the northern-most portion of Sy.No.259 while Sl.No.18 is located on the southernmost portion of Sy.No.259, which establishes that they are different parcels of land.
8. The affidavit of the Tahsildar also states that an extent of 02 acres in Sy.No.259 at Sl.No.22 was granted to Koramara Venkatamma under the order No.LND.SR.(3)-310/60-61 dated 21.05.1961. The order of confirmation is also enclosed as document No.2.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023
9. The affidavit also goes on to state that an extent of 02 acres in Sy.No.259 at Sl.No.18 was confirmed in favour of Anjanappa under the GMF Scheme under order No.LND.SR(2)-225/60-61 dated 21.01.1966. The copy of the Official Memorandum is also enclosed as document No 3.
10. This affidavit establishes that the grant made under the GMF Scheme was confirmed in favour of Koramara Venkatamma in 1961, while the grant in favour of Anjanappa was confirmed five years thereafter in 1966.
11. The copy of the receipts for having paid the land revenue by Koramara Venkatamma for the years 1954, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1960 and 1961 are also produced by A.J.James and Ancy James along with their memo dated 13.02.2024 which enclosed the records that they had produced in W.A. No.267 of 2020.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023
12. This sketch enclosed to the affidavit also states that Sy.No.259 was a Gomal land, whose total extent was 225 acres 16 guntas, out of which 125 acres had been granted.
13. On 05.04.1967, Koramara Venkatamma (described as daughter of Koramara Krishnappa) sold 02 acres of land that had been confirmed in her favour to B.G.Muniyappa under a registered sale deed for a sale consideration of Rs.400/-. Pursuant to the sale deed, the revenue entries were also mutated in favour of B.G.Muniyappa under M.R.No.6/1967-68 and the RTCs also reflect his name till 1995-96 in respect of Sy.No.259/22.
14. In the year 1995-96, the revenue entries were mutated vide M.R.No.52/1995-96 by which the names of B.G.Muniyappa's sons (with his second wife) i.e., B.M.Govindaraju and B.M.Narayanaswamy were entered in the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.259 on the basis of an oral partition reported
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 to the authorities and the names of B.M.Govindaraju and B.M.Narayanaswamy were entered in the RTCs in respect of Sy.No.259/22.
15. On 16.09.2006, B.M.Narayanaswamy and his children executed a sale deed in favour of A.J.James and his wife Ancy James in respect of 1 acre in Sy.No.259/22 i.e., the northern portion of Sy.No.259/22 for a sale consideration of Rs.22.05 lakhs. The revenue entries were also mutated in respect of Sy.No.259/22 vide M.R.No.213/2006-07 in favour of A.J.James and Ancy James and their names were also reflected in the RTCs.
16. The southern portion of 01 acre was retained by B.M.Govindaraju, the other son of B.G.Muniyappa.
17. A.J.James, thereafter sought durasthi and phodi of the land that he had purchased and it was noticed that the original records pertaining to the grant in favour of Koramara Venkatamma were unavailable
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 and hence, proceedings were initiated under Section 67(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ("the KLR Act"), which ultimately culminated in an order dated 31.07.2008 by the Assistant Commissioner, under which he ordered a durasthi and phodi of the land purchased by A.J.James and his wife.
18. The land purchased by A.J.James was thereafter assigned Sy.No.376 and the revenue entries were also mutated vide M.R.No.92/2008-09.
19. On 21.09.2008, the Tahsildar submitted a report to the Special Deputy Commissioner to the effect that the names of B.M.Govindaraju, B.M.Narayanaswamy, A.J.James and Ancy James had been entered in the RTC without any legal basis and requested for proceedings under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act to be initiated.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023
20. On 12.06.2009, A.J.James and his wife sought permission of the Deputy Commissioner to use the agricultural land that they had purchased for non- agricultural purpose i.e., for non-residential use (educational purpose). This application was processed and the Tahsildar also recommended for the permission to be granted. Incidentally, while processing the application, the Tahsildar had noted that the land did not come within the purview of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act').
21. The Deputy Commissioner, after conducting an enquiry, by his order dated 06.01.2011 came to the conclusion that the entries made in favour of A.J.James and his wife under M.R.No.213/2006-07 were improper and directed the cancellation of the same, and also directed the taking over of possession of the land.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023
22. This order of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged by A.J.James and his wife before this Court in W.P.No.46071 of 2011 and W.P. No.1697 of 2012 and this Court on 02.09.2014, set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner after observing that the records relating to the grant of Sy.No.259/22 were available and they had been obtained by A.J.James under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider the original records and pass orders afresh.
23. The Deputy Commissioner, instead of considering the matter afresh, proceeded to direct the Tahsildar to hold an enquiry, which resulted in filing of W.P. Nos.43826-27 of 2015 and this Court by an order dated 23.11.2015 quashed the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner and directed him to conduct an enquiry as ordered earlier in W.P.No.46071 of 2011.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023
24. The Deputy Commissioner, thereafter, proceeded to pass an order on 30.01.2016 dropping the proceedings under Section 136(3) of the KLR ACT since the records did indicate that the land had been granted to Koramara Venkatamma and also directed the Tahsildar to continue the entry in respect of Sy.No.376 (Old Sy.No.259/22) in favour of A.J.James and Ancy James.
25. In this order, he also recorded that the land had been granted to Koramara Venkatamma under the GMF scheme, and the grant had been confirmed on payment of an upset price. He also recorded that there was no prohibition for alienation of a land granted under the GMF scheme and the alienation made by Koramara Venkatamma to B.G.Muniyappa was valid, and A.J.James and Ancy James had purchased this land under a registered sale deed dated 16.09.2006 from the sons of B.G.Muniyappa.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023
26. During the pendency of these proceedings relating to the phodi and the claim of the Tahsildar that there were no records of grant of the property, on 25.08.2011, (i.e., about seven months after the Deputy Commissioner had cancelled the mutation made in favour of A.J.James and Ancy James on 06.01.2011), Gowramma and Bylamma--the daughter and widowed daughter-in-law of Anjanappa respectively, invoked the provisions of the PTCL Act and made an application to the Assistant Commissioner requesting him to declare the sale deed dated 05.04.1967 executed by Koramara Venkatamma in favour of B.G.Muniyappa as null and void and to resume the land in their favour.
27. In this application, they categorically stated as follows:
"3. The petitioners submit that, the land bearing Old Survey No.259, Later
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 Survey No.259/22 and now bearing New Survey No.376, measuring 2-00 acres, situated at Bettahalasuru Village, Jala Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, now Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk, Yelahanka, was granted in favour of Sri.Anjanappa, the father of the 1st petitioner and father-in- law of the 2nd petitioner by way of Dharkhast by the order of the Deputy Commissioner bearing No.B.Dis.LND.SR.2-225/60-61, dated 20.01.1966, and the grant certificate was issued by the Amildar, Devanahalli Taluk, dated 23.05.1966 and Saguvali chit was issued with a condition that, the subject lands should not be alienated without the prior permission of the government. The copy of the grant certificate is produced herewith and marked as DOCUMENT No.3.
4. The petitioners submit that, after the grant Anjanappa, was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said lands by getting the Khatha and other revenue records mutated to his name and died intestate leaving behind his wife Koramara Venkatamma and the petitioners herein to succeed over his
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416
WP No. 13200 of 2023
C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023
WP No. 13239 of 2023
estates. That, after the death of
Anjanappa, his wife Koramara
Venkatamma got the Khatha and other revenue records mutated to her name.
5. The petitioners submit that the said Venkatamma, due to lack of knowledge and poverty has sold the subject land in favour of one Sri.B.G.Muniyappa, the father of the 4th respondent and father- in-law of the 1st respondent and grand- father of the 2nd and 3rd respondents, in violation of the PTCL Act, under the sale deed dated 05.04.1967, registered as No.43/67-68, pages 166-167 Volume 977, Book I, in the office of the Sub- Registrar, at Devanahalli. The copy of the sale deed is produced herewith and marked as DOCUMENT No.3. The said sale is without the prior permission of the Government and hence, the very purpose of the grant has been violated.
6. The petitioners submit that, subsequently the 1st and deceased B.M.Govindaraju and 4th respondent appears to have orally partitioned the subject lands and thereafter, the 4th, 5th and 6th respondents have arbitrarily,
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 unlawfully and clandestinely sold an extent of 1-00 acre in favour of the 7th and 8th respondents under the sale deed dated 16.09.2006, registered as No.YAN- 1-15374-2006-07, stored in C.D. No.YAND 231, in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Yelahanka, Bangalore, which is also in total violation of the PTCL Act. The copy of the sale deed is produced herewith and marked as DOCUMENT No.4.
7. The petitioners submit that, after purchase of the lands, the Khatha of the subject land is standing in the name of B.M.Govindaraju and B.M.Narayanaswamy, to an extent of 1- 00 acre and another extent of 1-00 acre is mutated in favour of 7th and 8th respondents vide M.R.No.92/2008-2009 dated 29.05.2009. The copy of the mutation register extract is produced herewith and marked as DOCUMENT NO.5. The copy of the RTC Extract is produced herewith and marked as DOCUMENT NO.6."
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023
28. As could be seen from the above, they claimed that the land that had been granted to Anjanappa and was confirmed in his favour on 20.01.1966, had been sold by his wife Koramara Venkatamma after his death. Thus, they pleaded that Koramara Venkatamma was the wife of Anjanappa and that she had succeeded to the property granted to Anjanappa, on his death. In other words, they did not contend that the land granted to Koramara Venkatamma had been sold, but the land granted to Anjanappa had been sold by Koramara Venkatamma.
29. In these proceedings, both the widow and children of B.M.Govindaraju, B.M.Narayanaswamy and his children and also A.J.James and Ancy James were arrayed as respondents, but it appears that they did not appear despite notices being served.
30. The Assistant Commissioner proceeded to pass an order on 02.09.2014, accepting the claim of
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 Gowramma and Bylamma and declared the sale deed dated 05.04.1967 executed by Koramara Venkatamma and also the sale deed dated 16.09.2006 executed by B.M.Narayanaswamy and his children as null and void, and ordered for restoration of the lands in favour of Gowramma and Bylamma.
31. Pursuant to this order, their names were also mutated into the revenue records within 2 months on 07.11.2014 vide M.R.No.29/2014-15.
32. This order was challenged by A.J. James and Ancy James in 2016 by preferring an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner contending that they had no notice of the resumption proceedings.
33. However, in the interregnum, on 02.03.2015, i.e., about 6 months of the order of resumption passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Gowramma and Bylamma made an application seeking permission to
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 alienate the land that had been ordered to be restored to their favour.
34. It may be pertinent to state here that pursuant to the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 02.09.2014 directing resumption of the lands, no proceedings to resume the land and to hand over possession to Gowramma and Bylamma were sought to be initiated by them nor were any steps taken by the authorities to actually resume the lands which is confirmed by the affidavit that has been filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub- Division dated 17.12.2024.
35. In other words, even without taking possession of the lands which were ordered to be resumed in their favour, Gowramma and Bylamma had sought permission to sell the land, which was ordered to be resumed in their favour.
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023
36. The request of Gowramma and Bylamma was processed by the authorities and the Deputy Commissioner, in his recommendation dated 05.09.2015 to the Government, stated as follows:
"¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ (C¥ÀgÀ) vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, eÁ¯Á ºÉÆç½, ¨ÉlÖºÀ®¸ÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.259/22 (ºÉƸÀ ¸À.£ÀA.376) gÀ°è 2-00 JPÀgÉ «¹ÛÃtðzÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw/¥Àj²µÀÖ ¥ÀAUÀqÀzÀ (PÉ®ªÀÅ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À ¥ÀgÀ¨sÁgÉ ¤µÉÃzÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ) 1978 gÀ PÀ®A 4(2)gÀr ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw PÉÆÃj ²æêÀÄw UËgÀªÀÄä ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï CAf£À¥Àà, ²æêÀÄw ¨ÉÊ®ªÀÄä PÉÆÃA ¯ÉÃmï gÁªÀĪÀÄÆwðgÀªÀgÀÄ G¯ÉèÃR(5)gÀAvÉ Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, EªÀgÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw (PÉÆÃgÀªÀÄ) d£ÁAUÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.259gÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®vÀB ¸ÀPÁðj UÉÆêÀiÁ¼ÀzÀ d«ÄãÁVzÀÄÝ, F d«ÄãÀÄ DAf£À¥Àà gÀªÀjUÉ F PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ C¢üPÀÈvÀ eÁÕ¥À£À ¸ÀASÉå:©r¸ï/J¯ïJ£ïr/J¸ïDgï/2-225/1960-61 gÀAvÉ ªÀÄAdÆjAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ªÀÄAdÆj ªÉüÉAiÀÄ°è£À µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼À CªÀ¢üAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄÄV¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄAdÆjzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀªÀwAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀÄ PÀæAiÀÄ «PÀæAiÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀ»ªÁlÄ £ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ, ¦n¹J¯ï PÁAiÉÄÝ G®èAWÀ£ÉAiÀiÁVzÀÝgÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ G¥À «¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ,
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ G¥À «¨sÁUÀ gÀªÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ¸ÀASÉå:PÉ.J¸ï¹/J¹Ö/44/2011-12 gÀAvÉ «ZÁgÀuÉ £ÀqÉzÀÄ ¢:02.09.2014 gÀAzÀÄ CAwªÀÄ DzÉñÀªÁVzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj DzÉñÀzÀ°è ªÀÄAdÆjzÁgÀgÀ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ 2-00 JPÀgÉ d«Ää£À ºÀPÀÄÌ ¥ÀÄ£Àgï ¸Áܦ¸À®Ä DzÉñÀªÁzÀAvÉ JA.Dgï.ºÉZï.29/2014-15 ¢:07.11.2014 gÀAvÉ SÁvÉ zÁR¯ÁV ºÁ° ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄ°èAiÀÄÆ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¥Àæ²ßvÀ d«Ää£À°è CfðzÁgÀgÉà ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀ°ègÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
¸À.£ÀA.259/22gÀ°è 2-00 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀASÉå:lPÀÆå/©J£ï(J)r¦Dgï/16/2008-09gÀ DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ ¥ÉÆÃr zÀÄgÀ¹ÛAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÉƸÀ ¸À.£ÀA.376 JAzÀÄ DVzÀÄÝ, ºÁ°Ã ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄ°èAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."
* * * DzÀÝjAz,À G¥À «¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ G¥À «¨sÁUÀ gÀªÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ºÁUÀÆ vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ (C¥ÀgÀ) vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀܼÀ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹, CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ (C¥ÀgÀ) vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, eÁ¯Á ºÉÆç½, ¨ÉlÖºÀ®¸ÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.259/22 (ºÉƸÀ ¸À.£ÀA.376) gÀ°è 2- 00 JPÀgÉ «¹ÛÃtðzÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¥ÀgÀ²¸ÀÖ eÁw/¥Àj²µÀÖ ¥ÀAUÀqÀzÀ (PÉ®ªÀÅ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À ¥ÀgÀ¨sÁgÉ ¤µÉÃzÀ) PÁAiÉÄÝ 1978 gÀ PÀ®A
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 4(2)gÀAvÉ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃqÀ®Ä «²µÀÖ PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ ¸À°è¹zÉ."
37. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner informed the Government that Gowramma and Bylamma were in possession of the land though they themselves had stated in their applications filed in the year 2011 that the land was required to be restored to their favour.
38. As already noticed above, despite the order of resumption, no proceedings had been initiated to recover possession from B.M.Govindaraju and A.J.James and Ancy James, who were admittedly in possession of the land.
39. The Government, ultimately, accepted the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner and by an order dated 23.09.2015 accorded permission to them to sell the land. On the basis of this permission dated 05.09.2015, the Deputy
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 Commissioner issued an Official Memorandum dated 23.09.2015 intimating the factum of the permission accorded under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act by the Government.
40. On the basis of this permission, Gowramma and Bylamma proceeded to execute a sale deed on 14.10.2015 in favour of H.R. Suresh.
41. Thus, while A.J. James and Ancy James were fighting a battle before the Deputy Commissioner regarding the initiation of proceedings under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act, an ex parte order of resumption had been passed against them and thereafter, the Government had also accorded permission to Gowramma and Bylamma to sell the land and they had also sold the land to H.R. Suresh even though possession was not taken of the land ordered to be resumed in favour of Gowramma and Bylamma.
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023
42. As stated above, A.J.James and Ancy James preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner in 2016 challenging the order of resumption that had been passed by the Assistant Commissioner. In this appeal, H.R.Suresh--the purchaser was impleaded as a respondent. The Deputy Commissioner, by an order dated 02.05.2018, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration.
43. H.R. Suresh--the purchaser of the land, during this period proceeded to file a suit in O.S. No.25746 of 2018 against the children of B.G.Muniyappa, A.J.James and his wife, and B.M.Narayanaswamy and his family members and in this suit, the Trial Court granted him an order of temporary injunction in respect of Sy.No.376 (Old Sy.No.259).
44. In the remanded proceeding, H.R.Suresh was also impleaded as respondent No.9. The Assistant Commissioner after consideration of the matter,
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 proceeded to pass an order dated 21.02.2019 holding that the land had been granted to Anjanappa and had been transferred in contravention of the terms of the grant and the land was therefore required to be resumed.
45. It may be pertinent to state here that the order of remand was challenged by A.J.James and Ancy James along with the wife and children of B.M.Govindaraju before this Court in W.P. Nos.8401-02 of 2019 and this Court by an order dated 13.12.2019 held that the Assistant Commissioner had, during the pendency of the writ petition, already disposed of the application and the petition would therefore not survive for consideration, and that the petitioners had to avail the remedy of filing an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner.
46. A writ appeal in W.A.No.267 of 2020 was also preferred against this order, but the Division Bench
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 concluded that an appeal had to be preferred to the Deputy Commissioner and since the writ appeal was being prosecuted, it permitted the appellants to prefer an appeal within 30 days from the date of the order.
47. Pursuant to the above orders, A.J.James and his wife Ancy James along with the wife and children of B.M.Govindaraju preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner. In this appeal, the purchaser H.R.Suresh was arrayed as respondent No.5.
48. The Deputy Commissioner, after hearing, passed the order dated 22.05.2023, which is impugned in this writ petition, and allowed the appeal and set aside the order of resumption. The Deputy Commissioner held that the proceedings for resumption had been initiated 44 years after the grant and could not therefore be entertained. He also held that since the lands had been granted under the GMF Scheme, the
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 land could not be considered as a granted land as defined under the PTCL Act.
49. Being aggrieved by this order reversing the order of resumption, these writ petitions are filed by H.R. Suresh.
50. There is yet another proceeding which will have to be noticed since it would also have a bearing on this case.
51. A.J.James and G.B.Bhaskar (son of B.M.Govindaraju) had lodged several complaints to the Government commencing from 22.10.2019 up to 14.12.2022, complaining of the illegalities committed in the grant of permission to Gowramma and Bylamma to sell the land.
52. The Government, in turn, directed the Regional Commissioner to examine the complaints and submit his considered opinion. The Regional Commissioner, in turn, called for a report from the
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 Deputy Commissioner, and the Deputy Commissioner submitted a report dated 06.07.2023 to the Regional Commissioner. In this report, he stated that there had been lapses in the grant of permission under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act inasmuch as the proceedings that had been initiated under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act and those proceedings were ultimately dropped after noticing that there was indeed a grant in favour of Koramara Venkatamma, which had not been taken note of before considering the application. He also observed that the illegalities committed by the officials had resulted in severe prejudice to A.J.James and G.B.Bhaskar.
53. The Regional Commissioner accepted this report and proceeded to submit a report dated 13.11.2023 to the Government stating that the purchase made by A.J.James had been upheld by the Deputy Commissioner in Section 136(3) proceedings and,
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 therefore, the order of the Assistant Commissioner in resuming the lands was incorrect.
54. It may also be noticed here that H.R.Suresh was served with a notice dated 10.04.2023 in which it was stated that a survey was required to be conducted and H.R. Suresh proceeded to challenge the same by filing W.P. No.10634 of 2023 before this Court. This Court entertained this petition and directed the parties to maintain status quo and this petition is pending consideration.
55. It may also be pertinent to state here that A.J.James has made an application in this writ petition on 19.10.2024 seeking restitution. In this application, it is stated that he has made a claim for payment of damages to the extent of Rs.67.49 lakhs for the damage caused to his farmhouse, which was not considered by the authorities. It was contended by him that the farmhouse was destroyed by H.R. Suresh when he tried to enter into the property on
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 the basis of the sale deed and he is therefore entitled to be restituted and also be compensated. II. CONTENTIONS:
56. Sri. Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Sanjay Krishna, raised the following contentions:
i. The Deputy Commissioner could not have reversed the order of resumption on the ground of delay and laches in light of the amendment made to the PTCL Act in 2023.
ii. The Deputy Commissioner could not have reversed the order of resumption when the Government had accorded permission for selling the land on it being resumed and the petitioner had lawfully purchased the land on the strength of the permission.
iii. The Deputy Commissioner could not have come to the conclusion that the sale was valid when it was
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 clear that the grant carried a condition of non-
alienation and yet, the land had been sold by Koramara Venkatamma.
iv. The lands in question were 'granted land' as defined under the PTCL Act and even if it had been granted under the GMF Scheme, nevertheless, the provisions of the PTCL Act would apply.
v. The order of the Deputy Commissioner -- holding that the invocation of the PTCL Act was belated and hence illegal --cannot be accepted in light of the amendment made to the PTCL Act, which expressly stated that a proceeding cannot be avoided on the ground of limitation.
57. Sri. Prabhugoud Tumbigi, learned counsel appearing for the wife and children of B.M.Govindaraju, and A.J.James (who argued in person) made their submissions on the following lines:
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023
(i) The entire resumption proceedings initiated were completely misconceived since the applicants wanted the land said to have been granted to Anjanappa to be resumed but they had diabolically targeted the grant made to Koramara Venkatamma and the authorities, without examining this vital and key aspect of the matter, have held that the land granted to Anjanappa had been alienated in contravention of the terms of the grant.
(ii) The authorities failed to notice that Anjanappa was granted 02 acres at Sl.No.18 in Sy.No.259, while Koramara Venkatamma had been granted 02 acres at Sl.No.22 in Sy.No.259.These two grants were completely different parcels of land and hence, the claim for Anjanappa's lands could not have resulted in Koramara Venkatamma's land to be resumed.
(iii) The authorities failed to notice that Koramara Venkatamma was not the wife of Anjanappa and in the undisputed documents, she was identified as
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 being the daughter of Koramara Krishnappa and hence, the entire basis of the applicants for resumption, on the premise that she was the wife of Anjanappa who had sold the land granted to him, was misplaced and contrived.
(iv) The Deputy Commissioner was justified in reversing the order of resumption since, admittedly, the lands were granted under the GMF Scheme and hence, the question of invoking the PTCL Act would not arise.
(v) The Government had absolutely no jurisdiction to accord permission under Section 4(2) of the Act to Gowramma and Bylamma to sell the land since the lands were not resumed and restored to them as provided under the Act and the purchasers had always been in possession. Since this permission accorded was non-est, the consequential sale deed secured by H.R.Suresh was also null and void.
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023
(vi) The Government having created this imbroglio was required to be saddled with the liability of reimbursing the damages incurred by them and H.R.Suresh having chosen to take law into his own hands, would also have to be penalised equally. III. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
58. In light of the above, the points that would arise for consideration in these writ petitions are:
i. Whether the application for resumption filed by Gowramma and Bylamma could have been entertained in respect of the land which had been granted to Koramara Venakatamma?
ii. Whether the Government could have accorded permission to Gowramma and Bylamma to sell the land to H.R. Suresh without even noticing that the land had actually not been resumed and had been restored to them?
iii. Whether the provisions of the PTCL Act could be invoked in respect of the land
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 which was admittedly a land granted under the GMF Scheme?
iv. Whether the claim of A.J. James and his wife for reimbursement of damages and for restitution can be granted? IV. RE: THE 1ST POINT:
59. At the outset, it will have to be ascertained whether the applicants--Gowramma and Bylamma were seeking resumption of the lands granted to Anjanappa or not.
60. The learned Additional Government Advocate had not only produced the original file relating to the grant but also filed the affidavits of the Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner in this regard.
61. A.J. James has also placed on record the documents that he had secured under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which also corroborate the original records.
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023
62. The records, especially the sketch annexed to the affidavit of the Tahsildar dated 16.12.2024,establish that land bearing Sy.No.259 was originally a Gomal land measuring about 225 acres 16 guntas and lands had been granted not only under the GMF Scheme, but also under the D.D. Rules and under the Depressed Class Rules.
63. The sketch indicates that out of this Sy.No.259, lands varying from 06 to 02 acres had been granted to 25 individuals under the GMF Scheme and two persons have been granted under the Depressed Class Rules (appears as 02 acres each; however exact extent is not clearly visible as the document has been torn).
64. In this sketch, at Sl.No.18, it is shown that an extent of 02 acres had been granted to Anjanappa and at Sl.No.22 it is shown that an extent of 02 acres had been granted to Koramara Venkatamma.
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023
65. This fact is further corroborated by the extract of Grant Register (Annexure "D7") produced by A.J.James in Volume I of the documents produced by him, which is stated to have been produced in W.A. No.267 of 2020, wherein the details of the lands granted have been laid out. This document also indicates the period from which the persons mentioned were cultivating. In this document, the crops grown by them have also been noted and the name of Anjanappa is shown at Sl.No.18 while the name of Koramara Venkatamma is shown at Sl.No.22.
66. A statement showing the details of the lands granted under the GMF Scheme in Bettahalasur in Sy.Nos.259 and 198 (not completely visible) has also been produced as Annexure "D8", in which the names of 29 people are found. The name of Anjanappa is shown at Sl. No. 18 and the name of Koramara Venkatamma is shown at Sl.No.22 and the
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 year from which they have been cultivating is also shown.
67. He has also produced a statement of the Shanabhog Subbarayappa (Annexure "D9"), under which the discrepancy in the number of persons said to have been granted the land under the GMF Scheme has been explained.
68. These documents, therefore, leave no room for doubt that lands in Sy.No.259 were granted to 25 persons under the GMF Scheme and two bits of lands, both measuring 2 acres, had been granted to Anjanappa (at Sl.No.18) and to Koramara Venkatamma (at Sl.No.22). These documents also indicate that the grants to Anjanappa and Koramara Venkatamma were distinct and independent of each other.
69. It may also be pertinent to state here that the sketch produced by the Tahsildar along with his affidavit dated 16.12.2024 indicates the location of the lands
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 granted to 27 persons and the serial numbers are demarcated in the sketch. This would indicate that the land at Sl.No.22 is situated at the northern portion, while land at Sl.No.18 is situated in the southern portion, far away from each other and thus were not even abutting lands. The relevant potion of the sketch is extracted hereunder (with Sy.Nos.259/18 and 259/22 shown in circle by me) for ready reference :-
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023
70. Apart from these documents, A.J.James has also produced copy of the representation dated 23.09.1954 given by Bettahalasur Villagers in which they have made protestations regarding the grant of lands in Sy.No.259 under the GMF Scheme on the ground that there would be a shortage of Gomal lands and requested that these grants may be cancelled (Annexure "D4"). In this representation, it has been stated that the lands had been granted to Koramara Venkatamma and Anjanappa to the extent of 02 acres each among 32 other people.
71. It must be mentioned here that if Koramara Venkatamma was the wife of Anjanappa and two grants had been made to the husband and wife, the villagers would have definitely highlighted this fact and would have sought cancellation of these two grants only on that score, especially when the protestation is quite detailed in nature.
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023
72. In reply to this protestation, a report is given by the Amaldar to the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 12.10.1955 (a copy is produced at Annexure "D5") and which has been forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, wherein it has been stated that there was an extent of 237 Acres 27 guntas of land available for grazing and only 230 acres were required as the village only had 764 heads of cattle. He has also stated that the 25 persons who had been granted the lands under the GMF scheme had brought the lands granted to them under cultivation.
73. These documents, therefore, conclusively prove that there was indeed a grant of land to 25 persons in Bettahalasur village in Sy.No.259 and amongst the grantees were Anjanappa and Koramara Venkatamma.
74. Now, coming to the grant in favour of Koramara Venkatamma, A.J. James has produced the land
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 revenue receipts indicating the fact that assessment had been paid by her for the years 1954, 1956, 1959, 1960 and 1961 (Annexure "D12"). This would indicate that Koramara Venkatamma had complied with the conditions of the grant and had brought the same under cultivation and had also paid the assessment.
75. He has also produced the proceedings relating to the confirmation of grant in favour of Koramara Venkatamma including the report of the Revenue Inspector, Jala Hobli which indicates the report which was sent to the Assistant Commissioner dated 10.05.1961 explaining a discrepancy and seeks confirmation (Annexure "D10").
76. The records also contain the submission of the recommendation by the Assistant Commissioner dated 21.05.1961 to the Deputy Commissioner for approval of the confirmation, as the granted land had fulfilled the terms of the grant. A hangami
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 Saguvali chit issued to Koramara Venkatamma is also produced (Annexure "D2") which states possession of 2 acres in Sy.No.259 was handed over to her under the terms of the Government Order dated 11.04.1942 (the GMF Scheme order).
77. Thus, these documents clearly establish that a land measuring 2 acres in Sy.No.259 was granted to Koramara Venkatamma and this was also confirmed in her favour in 1961.
78. The Tahsildar has also filed an affidavit dated 18.12.2024 stating that the documents available in the Taluk office clearly established that the land in Sy.No.259, Sl.No.22 (wrongly typed as Sl.No.23) to an extent of 02 acres was allotted to Koramara Venkatamma daughter of Koramara Krishnappa under the GMF Scheme under order No.LND.SR (3)- 310 / 60-61 dated 21.05.1961 and confirmed on acceptance of an upset price of Rs.25/- per acre. He
- 56 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 has produced the order of confirmation, which was produced by A.J.James.
79. He has also gone on to state that the land at Sl.No.18 in the same Sy.No.259 was allotted to Anjanappa and 24 others under the GMF Scheme under order No.LND.SR(2)-225/1960-61 dated 20.01.1966. He has also produced the Office Memorandum issued by the Deputy Commissioner in this regard.
80. These documents therefore conclusively establish the fact that in Sy.No.259, Sl.No.18 was granted to Anjanappa under the GMF Scheme which was confirmed in his favour on 20.01.1966 and in the same Sy.No.259, Sl.No.22 was allotted to Koramara Venkatamma and confirmed in her favour on 21.05.1961. As already observed above, as per the sketch, these two lands (both measuring 02 acres) are situated far apart and are completely different.
- 57 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023
81. If there were two grants, one in favour of Anjanappa and another in favour of Koramara Venkatamma, it is obvious that they were separate grants and the authorities could not have blindly proceeded to accept the plea of Gowramma and Bylamma that the alienation made by Koramara Venkatamma was relatable to the land granted to Anjanappa.
82. If Gowramma and Bylamma were seeking resumption of the land granted to Anjanappa that would obviously mean that they were interested only in the land at Sl.No.18 in Sy.No.259 indicated in the sketch and they could have no right whatsoever to claim the land that had been granted to Koramara Venkatamma which was Sy.No.259, Sl.No.22.
83. Unfortunately, they made a patently false claim in their application for resumption that land bearing Sy.No.259/22, New Sy.No.376 measuring 02 acres had been granted to Anjanappa on 20.01.1966. They, thus, basically sought the land which had been
- 58 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 granted to Koramara Venkatamma, over which neither they nor Anjanappa had any right.
84. In order to buttress their claim, they conveniently stated that Koramara Venkatamma was Anjanappa's wife and had succeeded to the property after his death and sold it in contravention of the terms of the grant. They however, produced no document to establish that Koramara Venkatamma was the wife of Anjanappa.
85. It is to be stated here that since the fundamental premise of the claim of Gowramma and Bylamma was that they were the legal heirs of Anjanappa and were thus entitled to seek resumption, it is obvious that they could seek resumption of only the land at Sl.No.18 in Sy.No.259, and not Sl.No.22 in Sy.No.259. This simple but vital aspect of the matter has totally been lost sight by the Assistant Commissioner.
- 59 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023
86. It must also be stated here that Koramara Venkatamma, in the sale deed dated 05.04.1967, has categorically stated that she had been granted the land bearing Sy.No.259 and had been issued a Saguvali chit on 05.02.1953 under the GMF Scheme. It must be noticed here that in this sale deed, she has been described as Venkatamma daughter of Koramara Krishnappa and she has also been identified by the Shanabhog Subbarayappa and he has described her as Venkatamma wife of Krishnappa. This document, thus, clearly establishes that Koramara Venkatamma was selling the land that she had been granted, and this document also indicates that Venkatamma was the daughter of Koramara Krishnappa, and the wife of Krishnappa hence, she could not be the wife of Anjanappa.
87. It is therefore clear that the entire basis of the initiation of the resumption proceedings by Gowramma and Bylamma was patently incorrect and
- 60 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 was designed to usurp the property that had been granted to Koramara Venkatamma, albeit under the guise of seeking resumption of the land granted to Anjanappa. The resumption proceedings would therefore be illegal and would have to be quashed. V. RE: THE 2ND, 3RD AND 4TH POINTS -- APPLICABILITY OF THE PTCL ACT TO THE LANDS IN QUESTION:
88. Sri. Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior Counsel sought to contend that in respect of lands temporarily granted on lease under the GMF scheme and subsequently confirmed would also be subject to the condition of non-alienation for a specified period and since Anjanappa was a person belonging to the schedule caste, the provisions of the PTCL Act would be attracted.
89. He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Guntaiah's case1 to contend that the decision of the Full Bench rendered in 1 Guntaiah & Ors. v. Hambamma & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 228.
- 61 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 Hambamma's case2 which had approved an earlier Full Bench decision in Chikka Kullegowda's case3 had been reversed and it had been held that even in respect of a land which had been leased temporarily, the period of non-alienation would apply and if they were breached, the PTCL Act could be invoked.
90. Firstly, this argument, in this case would not apply since it is already held that a false claim was made in respect of Koramara Venkatamma's land on the specious plea that it was the land granted to Anjanappa. If the land in question was not granted to Anjanappa, the question of invoking the PTCL Act would not at all arise.
91. However, since this question has been raised, the same will have to be considered.
2 Smt. Hambamma v. State Of Karnataka & Ors., ILR 1999 Kar 261. 3 Chikka Kullegowda v. the State of Karnataka, ILR 1999 Kar 261.
- 62 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023
92. In Siddamma's case4, a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case in which lands had been allotted under the GMF Scheme and had thereafter been confirmed and in that context had held that Rule 43J of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960 which related to grant of lands to persons to whom lands had been previously leased, would not make Rule 43G (which imposed a condition of non-alienation) applicable.
93. This judgment was approved by the Full Bench in Chikka Kullegowda's case. However, in that case, the Full Bench was not concerned with a land granted under the GMF Scheme and was actually dealing with a case where lands had been temporarily leased to certain persons belonging to scheduled castes or scheduled tribes before the commencement of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960 and were subsequently 4 Siddamma v. Chikkegowda, (1991) KLJ 210.
- 63 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 granted under Rule 43J (paragraph 2 of the judgment). The Full Bench in that case approved the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in Siddamma's case in the context of Rule 43G not being applicable to a land granted under Rule 43J, but since this case was not concerning a land granted under the GMF Scheme, the same can have no application directly.
94. This decision of the Full Bench was approved by another Full Bench in Hambamma's case which held that the period of 15 years non-alienation cannot be applied for lands granted under Rule 43J. However, this judgment has been reversed by the Apex Court in Guntaiah's case and, therefore, the argument is being advanced that even in respect of lands granted under the GMF scheme, if the grantee is a person belonging to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe, the PTCL Act would be applicable.
- 64 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023
95. It must be noticed here that in Guntaiah's case also, the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which lands had been granted to persons belonging to scheduled castes or scheduled tribes who had been given these lands on a temporary lease and had thereafter granted to them permanently (paragraph 2 of the judgment) and was not dealing with a land which had been granted under the GMF scheme. In my view, therefore, the reliance placed on this judgment can be of no avail.
96. The then Government of Mysore, much before the Rules were amended in 1960, which brought in Rule 43G, had issued a Government Order dated 11.04.1942 which sought to increase the lands under cultivation and thereby enhance the production of food grains, which were in short supply. In this Government Order, it has been stated as follows:
- 65 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 Government of His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore General and Revenue Departments G.O. No.R.6580-93-R.M.65-41-1, dated 11th April 1942 Food and fodder Crops Issues orders granting certain concessions for increasing the production of ---- in the State "1. x x x First year .... Free of assessment 2nd and 3rd year ... Half assessment
2. The Committee which was appointed by Government in October 1940 to investigate this question stressed the need for increasing the output of paddy and togari and other pulses in the State for meeting local requirements. The total area under paddy has varied from about 7 lakhs of acres to 8 lakhs a year, according to the conditions of rainfall and water supply in tanks and the trade statistics show that Mysore has had to import every year 10 to 20 lakh pallas of paddy valued at from 50 to 100 lakhs of rupees. In view of the international situation, the problem of the supply of rice has become very acute owing to the difficultly of obtaining supplies from places from where the State was
- 66 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 importing hitherto. It has, therefore, become imperatively necessary to devise measures to grow more paddy locally so that the requirements of the people of the state may be satisfied. A scheme has already been sanctioned by Government for a period of three years by which the deficit is intended to be covered in part by increasing production in 21 taluks of the State. There is, however, a large extent of unoccupied irrigable lands which has not yet been brought under cultivation and the disposal of these lands has been slow, mainly due to the inability of the applicants to pay the value of the lands. Government therefore consider that some special concessions should be granted to persons intending to bring these areas under cultivation and that the normal procedure of darkhasts should also be simplified so that the delay in the grant of lands may be minimized as far as possible. Government are accordingly pleased to direct that the Deputy Commissioners may be empowered to lease out unoccupied irrigable lands under channels and tanks for temporary paddy cultivation for a period not
- 67 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 exceeding three years with concessions as to payment of assessment as noted in the margin. The persons who bring the lands under cultivation will have the option of purchasing the lands for a reasonable upset price at the end of the period of lease, viz., three years. They are further pleased to direct that paddy cultivation on marshy lands may be encouraged by waiving the assessment, provided the lands do not use channel water directly"
(emphasis supplied)
97. It must be noticed here that the Government did not make any special reservation to persons belonging to depressed classes nor did they extend any concession to them specifically. This scheme was thrown open to the public in general and was made available to any person who came forward to put unoccupied lands to cultivation, given the background that there was severe shortage of grains and imperative steps were to be taken to increase the production. The order, in fact, states that the
- 68 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 normal procedures of Darkhasts should be simplified so that delay in grant of the lands were minimised.
98. Thus, the Government Order was, in essence, a relaxation to the normal land grant rules which contained various restrictions on granted lands. If the lands are permitted to be occupied for putting the same under cultivation and if the occupier is given the option of purchasing the same after 3 or 5 years, if he has brought the lands leased to him under cultivation, it is obvious that such kind of grants cannot be imposed with the restrictive clauses which would be applied in respect of the normal grants.
99. It must be kept in mind that under the normal land grant rules, the procedure for reserving lands to depressed classes and allotting it to them because they belong to depressed classes would make it a granted land, which would, in turn, attract the restrictive clauses. However, if the lands are allotted
- 69 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 in relaxation of the rules, obviously the restrictive clauses can have no application.
100. It must also be stated here that a division bench of this Court in W.A. Nos.4121-4134 of 20135 has held that the lands granted under the GMF scheme cannot be considered as granted land as defined under the PTCL Act, and the PTCL Act can have no application. This decision has also been followed in W.P. No.37475 of 20116.
101. A Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.12748 of 20117 followed said decisions and held that the provisions of the PTCL Act would be inapplicable in 5 Muniraju and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, WA Nos.4121-4134 of 2013, disposed on 18.03.2015; the relevant paragraph reads as under:
"14. When the land is taken under 'Grow More Food Scheme', the lessee is not required to pay rent or lease for the first year and he was required to pay half of the assessment of the land for the subsequent years. In the circumstances, we are of the view that if the land was granted to Marappa on lease under 'Grow More Food Scheme' and thereafter it is confirmed to him, it cannot be considered as a land granted to him considering him as Scheduled Caste or a depressed person ......"6
V.N.Babu Reddy and another vs. Smt.Venkatamma and others, W.P. No.37475 of 2011, disposed on 08.12.2017;
7Nanjamma and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, WP No.12748 of 2011 disposed on 25.02.2022;
- 70 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 respect of lands granted under the GMF scheme and this decision has been affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.339 of 20228disposed on 19.09.2022 which has also been confirmed by the Apex Court in SLP(C) No.4224 of 20239.
102. In light of the fact that the Apex Court has confirmed the decision of the Division Bench holding that the provisions of the PTCL Act would be inapplicable to lands granted under the GMF scheme, the arguments of Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil cannot be accepted.
103. There are, however, a few disturbing aspects of this case which brings to light the harassment that a citizen has had to endure and it has become necessary to pass orders remedying the injustice caused.
8 Sri.B.Shivalingaiah vs. Smt.Nanjamma and others, WA No.339 of 2022 disposed of 19.09.2022;
9Sri.B.Shivalingaiah vs. Smt.Nanjamma and others, SLP(c) No.4224 of 2023, disposed of on 24.02.2023.
- 71 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023
104. As already noticed above, an attempt was made to usurp the land granted to Koramara Venkatamma by contending that she was the wife of Anjanappa and had sold the land after his death in contravention of the terms of the grant, even though the land had been granted to her distinctly and independently. This crucial and key aspect was totally lost sight of by the authorities and the lands were ordered to be resumed.
105. After the order of resumption was passed, the authorities have committed a blunder, which has resulted in catastrophic consequences on innocent people.
106. Under the provisions of the PTCL Act, more specifically Section 5(1)(a) thereof, the Assistant Commissioner is empowered to make an order to take possession of such land if he has been satisfied that the transfer of the granted land was null and
- 72 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 void. He is also empowered to take possession after evicting all persons in possession in the prescribed manner.
107. Thus, after holding an enquiry and on being satisfied that a granted land has been transferred in contravention of the terms of the grant made, the Assistant Commissioner can declare that the transfer is null and void and thereafter, also take possession of the land by evicting all persons who are in possession of the same, however, in the manner prescribed.
108. The proviso to Section 5(1)(a) of the Act, in fact, stipulates that no order shall be made unless the person to be affected by the order is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
109. Under Section 5(1)(b) of the Act, he is thereafter required to restore the land to the original grantee or his legal heir and only if that is not practicable,
- 73 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 the land is deemed to have vested in the State and the State will have to grant the land to persons belonging to scheduled castes or scheduled tribes.
110. The State has framed the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Rules, 1979 (for short, "the PTCL Rules") under the PTCL Act and Rule 3 thereof reads as under:
"3. Resumption and restitution of granted lands: (1) Every application by any interest person under Section 5 shall be in Form I. (2) On receipt of an application or information under sub-section(1) of Section 5, the Assistant Commissioner may direct the applicant or informant, as the case may be, to furnish such further particulars or information as may be required and fix a date for furnishing the same.
(3) After receipt of the particulars or information if any, called for under sub-
- 74 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 rule (2), the Assistant Commissioner shall, by a notice in Form II, require the person or persons in possession of the granted land to file objections, to the claim with documentary evidence, if any, within such reasonable time, as the Assistant Commissioner may think fit in the circumstances of the case.
(4) The Assistant Commissioner shall fix a date for hearing notice of which shall be given to the applicant or the informant as the case may be other interested persons and persons objecting the claim. A copy of the notice shall also be affixed on the notice Board of the Office of the Assistant Commissioner and the concerned Taluk Office.
(5) Save as otherwise provided in these rules, the Assistant Commissioner shall for the purpose of an enquiry under Section 5, follow the procedure for a formal enquiry under Section 33 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. (6) After enquiry, the Assistant Commissioner shall consider all the objections raised and pass an order
- 75 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 giving reasons for his conclusions. Thereafter he may take possession of such land after evicting the persons in possession thereof in the manner specified in Section 39 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and take further action as provided in Section 5.
(7) The provision of sub-rules (2) to (6) shall mutatis mutandis apply to suo motu action, if any taken by the Assistant Commissioner."
111. As could be seen from the above, the Rule clearly stipulates that the Assistant Commissioner is required to issue a notice to the person in possession, give him an opportunity to file objections, hold an enquiry and then pass a reasoned order.
112. The Assistant Commissioner is thereafter permitted to take possession of the lands after evicting the persons in possession of such land in the manner specified in Section 39 of the KLR Act.
- 76 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023
113. Section 39 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act reads as follows:
"39. Manner of evicting any person wrongfully in possession of land.-- Whenever it is provided by this Act or any other law for the time being in force that the Deputy Commissioner may or shall evict any person wrongfully in possession of land or where any order to deliver possession of land has been passed against any person under this Act, such eviction shall be made or such order shall be executed, as the case may be, in the following manner, namely:--
(i) by serving a notice on the person or persons in possession requiring them within such time as may appear reasonable after receipt of the said notice to vacate the land, and
(ii) if such notice is not obeyed, by removing or deputing a subordinate officer to remove any person who may refuse to vacate the same, and
(iii) if the officer removing any such person is resisted or obstructed by any
- 77 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 person, the Deputy Commissioner or the Revenue Officer, as the case may be, shall hold a summary inquiry into the facts of the case and, if satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without any just cause and that such resistance and obstruction still continues, may, without prejudice to any proceedings to which such person may be liable under any law for the time being in force for the punishment of such resistance or obstruction, take or cause to be taken, such steps and use or cause to be used, such force as may, in the opinion of such officer, be reasonably necessary for securing compliance with the order."
114. As could be seen from the above, a person against whom an order of eviction has been passed shall be evicted only in the manner specified therein. The first requirement under Section 39 is for the Deputy Commissioner to issue a notice to the person in possession calling upon him to vacate the land and if he disobeys such notice, he may remove the person
- 78 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 in possession by himself or by deputing a subordinate.
115. If the person in possession resists or obstructs the taking over of possession, a summary enquiry is required to be conducted and only if he is satisfied that there was no just cause for the obstruction, he may cause the possession to be taken by the use of reasonable force which is reasonably required to secure compliance of the order to hand over possession.
116. Thus, by the mere passing of an order holding that the transfer of the granted land was null and void and directing possession to be handed over, by itself, would not entitle the Assistant Commissioner to simply go and take possession and he is required to first issue a notice to the person in possession to vacate and if he disobeys such an order, he is thereafter required to hold an enquiry and only on being satisfied that there was no just cause for the
- 79 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 obstruction, he may dispossess the person in possession by using reasonable force.
117. However, in this case, the procedure under Rule 3(6) of the PTCL Rules and Section 39 of KLR Act has not at all been followed. The Assistant Commissioner, on an oral direction to file an affidavit in the matter of taking possession, has filed an affidavit on 17.12.2024 in which it is stated as follows:
"3. I state that by going through the documents available in the Asst. Commissioner Office on record clearly establishes that in case No.KACST/BNA 44/2011-12 passed in the Court of the Asst. Commissioner Bengaluru North Sub Division, Bengaluru dated 22.02.2019, the then Asst. Commissioner restore the land in favour of the legal heirs of the grantees i.e., the present Petitioner. The Kacheri Tippani dated 26.12.2018 nothing indicates the procedure for the eviction, the then Asst. Commissioner and communication to the Tahsildar and spot mahazar notices is not available in the
- 80 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 office of the Asst. Commissioner. The copy of Kacheri Tippani dated 26.12.2018 is herewith produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.1. The endorsement dated 17.10.2018 is herewith produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.2."
118. He has also enclosed an endorsement dated 17.10.2018 that had been issued to A.J.James, in which it is stated that there are no notices issued as contemplated under Rule 3(6) of the PTCL Rules or under Section 39 of the KLR Act. This, thus, fundamentally establishes that no steps were taken in the manner specified under the PTCL Rules and under Section 39 of the KLR Act, pursuant to the order of resumption dated 02.09.2014 and the persons in possession i.e., A.J.James and B.M.Govindaraju's family members were dispossessed in accordance with law.
119. It cannot be in dispute that in a proceeding under the PTCL Act, a grantee or his legal heir is not in possession of the lands that had been granted to
- 81 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 him, as he would have admittedly transferred them to another in contravention of the terms of the grant under an instrument. It is only after this transfer is declared to be null and void can the transferee be evicted and the land be restored to the grantee or his legal heir.
120. If the persons in possession i.e., the transferee are not dispossessed in the manner specified in Rule 3(6) of the PTCL Rules and Section 39 of the KLR Act, the question of restoring the land to the grantee would never arise.
121. However, in this case, without verifying this elementary fact as to whether the transferees who were admittedly in possession had been dispossessed, the authorities have entertained the application filed by Gowramma and Bylamma seeking permission to sell the land which ordered to be resumed in their favour.
- 82 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023
122. In fact, in the recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner, which is already extracted above, they have gone on to observe that Gowramma and Bylamma were already in possession. This has been done obviously for extraneous considerations.
123. In fact, pursuant to the complaint lodged by A.J.James, an enquiry had been ordered by the Government and the Regional Commissioner has submitted a report that there were several illegalities in the grant of permission and steps should be taken to cancel the permission accorded. This report, by itself, proves the callous manner in which the officials have acted and which has resulted in H.R.Suresh taking advantage of the situation and dispossessing A.J.James and his wife, and also the wife and children of B.M.Govindaraju and also caused damage to their property.
124. In fact, A.J.James has placed on record, material to show that the farmhouse that he had constructed
- 83 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023 has been damaged considerably and material in this regard was also placed before the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, but they have not passed any order in this regard.
125. In my view, since the according of permission by the State to H.R.Suresh without even verifying whether the land had been resumed and restored to Gowramma and Bylamma is the root cause of the trauma and damage caused to A.J.James and his wife, it would be appropriate to impose exemplary costs of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) to be paid by the State to A.J. James and his wife. Ordered accordingly.
126. During the course of arguments, to a specific query as to how H.R.Suresh got possession, it was stated that Gowramma and Bylamma were in possession and they had handed over the possession.
- 84 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023
127. This reply cannot obviously be acceptable since Gowramma and Bylamma in their application seeking resumption themselves had requested the Assistant Commissioner to restore the lands in their favour. It is therefore obvious that H.R. Suresh has used the sale deed executed in his favour to secure possession to himself without even verifying whether A.J.James, his wife and others had been dispossessed in accordance with law pursuant to the order of resumption that had been passed by the Assistant Commissioner. It would therefore also be necessary to impose exemplary costs on H.R. Suresh in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) for taking law into his own hands and dispossessing A.J.James and his wife, and also the wife and children of B.M.Govindaraju. Ordered accordingly.
128. The costs, as ordered above, shall be paid within a period of four weeks from today.
- 85 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3416 WP No. 13200 of 2023 C/W WP No. 13192 of 2023 WP No. 13239 of 2023
129. As a further consequence, the Deputy Commissioner is directed to take immediate steps to evict H.R.Suresh from the lands in question and put A.J.James, Ancy James and also the wife and children of B.M.Govindaraju in possession of land bearing Sy.No.376 (Old Sy.No.259/22) measuring 02 acres of Bettahalasur village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk, Bengaluru.
130. The Deputy Commissioner shall file an affidavit of compliance, for which, though the matters have been disposed of, shall be re-listed on 24.02.2025.
131. The points for consideration are accordingly answered and all the writ petitions filed by H.R.Suresh are accordingly dismissed in the above terms.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71