- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3455 WP No. 2904 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 2904 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI M SRINIVAS, S/O LATE SIR MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O NO 154, SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BETTAHALASUR, BENGALURU - 562 157. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VEERAYYA HIREMATH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SPECIAL COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. A S RAJU, S/O SABANNA, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3455 WP No. 2904 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O NO 7, KHB COLONY, 1ST MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, YALAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATH K, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI S. B. TOTAD, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS. 2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER REPRESENTATION DATED 26/08/2023 OF PETITIONER TO DELIVERY THE POSSESSION OF LAND BEARING SY. NO. 10/P1 P3 MEASURING 20 GUNTAS SITUATED AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT AS PER ANNEXURE M BY ISSUE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION AS THE CASE MAY BE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner has filed the caption petition seeking a mandamus against the respondents to consider their representation dated 26.08.2023 and deliver the possession of land bearing Sy No.10/P1 P3 situated at Sonnapanahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru District. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3455 WP No. 2904 of 2024 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. 3. The petitioner, having obtained a restoration order in respect of the granted land, seeks the rightful possession of the same. It is undisputed that the land in question is a granted land and that the sale deed executed in favor of respondent No.4 has been declared null and void under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1978'). The restoration order has attained finality, and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the enforcement of the said order and restitution of the granted land in its entirety. 4. On the other hand, respondent No.4, who is contesting the present writ petition, does not dispute the finality of the restoration order. However, he contends that the petitioner himself is a party to a joint construction agreement, pursuant to which a school building has been constructed on - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3455 WP No. 2904 of 2024 the subject land. He asserts that respondent No.3 does not have the jurisdiction to dispossess him from the school premises, as such an action would have far-reaching consequences, primarily affecting the education of students enrolled therein. Given the existence of this structure on the land, respondent No.4 insists that a mere restoration order does not automatically entitle the petitioner to reclaim possession of the constructed portion, as the nature of the land may have been altered. 5. In light of these competing claims, it is imperative that the competent authority undertakes a thorough examination while executing the restoration order. Section 5 of the Act, 1978, envisions the resumption and restitution of granted land, which by its very nature refers to agricultural land. Any subsequent modifications, such as the construction of a building, must be assessed through a spot inspection to ascertain the feasibility of restoring not only the land but also any structures erected thereon. This determination falls within the jurisdiction of the authority executing the restoration order under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, 1978. If such proceedings are initiated, respondent No.4 shall have a limited right to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3455 WP No. 2904 of 2024 present his case and substantiate his claim that the school building should not be subjected to the provisions of Section 5(1)(a) of the Act, 1978. The competent authority must carefully evaluate this issue before taking any steps towards restoring possession of the land to the petitioner. 6. For the forgoing reasons, this Court passes the following ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The respondent authorities are hereby directed to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 26.08.2023 and pass appropriate orders under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act, 1978, in strict adherence to the observations made in this judgment. iii) While executing the restoration order, the competent authority shall conduct a detailed spot inspection of the petition land to determine whether the existing school building, if any, is liable to be restored to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3455 WP No. 2904 of 2024 the petitioner or whether any other course of action is warranted in light of the provisions of the Act, 1978. iv) Respondent No.4 shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present his objections, if any, regarding the applicability of Section 5(1)(a) to the constructed portion of the land before the competent authority. v) The entire exercise shall be completed within a reasonable time frame, not exceeding four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. vi) No costs. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6