- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12778-DB WA No. 104 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL No. 104 OF 2025 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. AKKAYAPPA, S/O LATE CHANNARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, THANISANDRA, K. R. PURA HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK 560 077. 2. VENAKTESH, S/O CHANNARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, THANISANDRA, K.R. PURA HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK 560 077. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI HALESHA R. G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE 560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE - 560001. 3. THE GOVINDAPPA, S/O LATE APPANNAPPA, THANISANDRA, Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12778-DB WA No. 104 of 2025 K. R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK. 4. CHIKKANNA, S/O HEBBAL CHINNASWAMPAPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS, T. C. HEMANNA, S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, 5. T. C. CHINNASWAMY, S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, BOTH 4(a) AND 4(b) R/AT HEGDE NAGAR MAIN ROAD, OPP KEB NARAYANAPPA BUILDING, THANISANDRA VILLAGE, SHIVARAMAKARANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU 560077. 6. MANJAMMA, W/O LATE GUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT No.53, AADITYA NAGAR, 5TH MAIN ROAD, KOTHANUR MAIN ROAD, J. P. NAGAR 8TH PHASE, BENGALURU 5600078. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.11.2024 IN WP No. 23637/2012 (SC-ST) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE WHEREBY CONFIRMED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU ON 26.05.2012 IN CASE No. SC.ST(A)/152/09-10 AND IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU ON 02.08.2008 IN CASE No.KSC.ST/01/2006-07, PRODUCED IN WRIT PETITION AS ANNEXURE- Q AND K. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12778-DB WA No. 104 of 2025 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr. R. G. Halesha for the appellants-applicants and learned Government Advocate Mr. K. S. Harish, who appeared upon service of the copy of appeal in advance. 2. While the appeal comes up on Board along with the interim application for condonation of delay of 32 days, since the main appeal as well as the order of learned Single Judge impugned in the appeal were available on record and the submissions were made by learned advocates on merits, the Court had an occasion to dwell into the merits of the impugned order itself. 3. The appellants-petitioners prayed before the learned Single Judge to set aside the order dated 26.05.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-respondent No.1 herein, as well as - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12778-DB WA No. 104 of 2025 the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 02.08.2008, which was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. 3.1 The application was filed by one Sharadamma W/o. Channappa who happened to be the daughter-in-law of the original grantee of the land, described as Survey No.93/4 ad- measuring 2 Acres situated at Thanisandra Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluka. A prayer was made before the Assistant Commissioner by filing an application for restoration of the land on the ground that the applicants were the heirs of the original grantee, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. 3.2 It was those orders, which came to be challenged before learned Single Judge. 3.3 The relevant facts to be noted are that the said land was granted to Chennarayappa in the year 1930-31 as per the rules prevalent at the time of grant. There was a condition prohibiting alienation of the land for 20 years. The original grantee sold the land after the embargo period of 20 years on - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12778-DB WA No. 104 of 2025 03.08.1953. When the land was sold, the sale was permissible as per the condition of the grant. 3.4 It appears that subsequently in the year 1974, the grantee decided to get the deed of re-conveyance executed in the name of his first wife's son. Thereafter, the stand was taken by the applicants-the heirs of the grantee that the original alienation of the land was not permissible in law as it attracted the bar of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, more particularly, Section 4(2) of the said Act. It was on such ground, application was made before the Assistant Commissioner for restoration of the land. 4. Learned Single Judge observed that once the sale deed was executed, there was transfer of title validly made in favour of the third party named Chennarayappa, "20. It is also to be stated here that at the time of this conveyance, there was no prohibition for the sale and the land stood vested absolutely in favor of Chennarayappa. If the land stood vested absolutely in the name of Chennarayappa, the question of it being a granted land as defined under the provisions of the PTCL Act would not arise. The subsequent re-purchase by the applicants, even assuming it was re-purchased by the grantee, would not change the nature of the land and would not resume the character of it to be a granted land." - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12778-DB WA No. 104 of 2025 4.1 It was then observed by learned Single Judge that the moment the purchase was made by the applicants from the purchasers, who were entitled to purchase it, the land essentially became their personal property and cannot be construed as property of the grantee Chennarayappa. Consequently, the sale made by them in the year 1992 cannot be held to be a transfer in contravention of the term of a grant. For the said reasons, learned Single Judge dismissed the petition and upheld the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner. 5. The view taken by learned Single Judge in the facts of the case could be said to be eminently proper and legal. No interference would have warranted in the impugned order. In that view, the question of condoning the delay does not arise and is not condoned. The application for condonation of delay as well as the main appeal, both are dismissed. SD/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE SD/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20