- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4331 WP No. 7398 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 7398 OF 2024 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. GOPALAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS., SRI. SAMPANGI RAMAIAH S/O LATE GOPALAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/A NAGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562135 SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVAN IST FLOOR, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562110 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4331 WP No. 7398 of 2024 AT DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203 4. SRI CHETHAN M S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/A NAGANAYKANAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562135 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SMT.C.M.MANJU., ADVOCATE FOR R-4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO ADMIT THE WP, CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE R2-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN CASE NO. LND/SC/ST(A)40/2021 DATED 17/01/2024 IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING OLD SY. NO. 47 AND NEW SY. NO. 105 MEASURING AN EXTENT OF 3 ACRE AND 8 GUNTAS KHARAB SITUATED AT NAGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. These facts are not in dispute : 2. A grant was made in favour of Sri.B.K. Muniyappa on 19.11.1971. However, Sri.B.K. Muniyappa chose to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4331 WP No. 7398 of 2024 execute a sale deed on 04.09.1995 in favour of the father of the petitioner. 3. As a consequence, proceedings for resumption was initiated by Sri.N.M.Venkatesh, the son of the grantee, Sri.B.K.Muniyappa in PTCL/SR/No.33/2000- 01. In this resumption proceedings, a Memo came to be filed which contained the signature of both Sri.N.M.Venkatesh and his counsel, which reads as follows – “MEMO The petitioner is unable to bring the L.Rs on record of the respondent, hence, this Memo praying this Hon’ble Authority be pleased to drop the matter as not pressed in the ends of justice.” 4. In the light of the Memo, the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the Appeal as not pressed on 10.04.2003. Thereafter, the present respondent No.4 – M.Chethan, who was also the son of Muniyappa - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4331 WP No. 7398 of 2024 initiated a fresh proceedings for resumption on 01.08.2016 i.e., nearly 13 years after the resumption proceedings was dropped and after nearly 21 years from the date of the first sale. 5. The Assistant Commissioner accepted this application and passed an order of resumption. In this order of resumption, the Assistant Commissioner opined that there was a litigation between the members of B.K.Muniyappa’s family and they were prevented from approaching the Court and consequently, notwithstanding the dismissal of the earlier resumption proceedings, having regard to the fact that the objectives of the Act was to be fulfilled, an order of resumption was required to be passed. 6. Being aggrieved, the purchaser preferred an appeal. 7. The Deputy Commissioner, by the impugned order, has allowed the appeal in part and while setting aside the order of resumption passed by the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4331 WP No. 7398 of 2024 Assistant Commissioner on the application of M.Chetan, he has gone on also to set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in the first round, that is the order dated 10.04.2003 by which the application for resumption was dismissed as not pressed. 8. As a consequence, the purchaser is before this Court insofar as it relates to that portion of the order which sets aside the order dated 10.04.2003. 9. Sri. Sampath A., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when there was not even a challenge to the order dated 10.04.2003, the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to set aside the said order. He also points out that once the resumption proceedings has stood concluded by an order of dismissal, a second application by another legal heir could never have been entertained. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4331 WP No. 7398 of 2024 10. He lastly submits that assuming that the second application were to be valid, since the resumption proceedings were initiated nearly 21 years after the sale, the same was clearly belated and could not be sustained. 11. Learned counsel appearing for respondent, Smt.C.M.Manju, however, submits that the order of the Assistant Commissioner cannot be found fault with and neither can the order of the Deputy Commissioner. She submits that if one of the legal representatives had chosen to withdraw the application for resumption, that would not by itself disentitle the other legal representatives to seek for resumption. 12. She further submits that given the background of the applicants, the Deputy Commissioner was justified in setting aside the order dated 10.04.2003. He submits that the Deputy Commissioner possesses the inherent power to set aside an order even though no - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4331 WP No. 7398 of 2024 specific challenge was made to the order dated 10.04.2003. 13. As already noticed above, it is not in dispute that an application for resumption was filed by N.M.Venkatesh, who is admittedly the son of the grantee B.K.Muniyappa and N.M. Venkatesh chose to file a Memo requesting the proceedings be dropped and accordingly, the proceedings were, in fact, dropped in 2003 itself. 14. In my view, once the resumption proceedings initiated by one of the legal heirs is entertained and is ultimately dismissed, a subsequent application by another legal heir cannot be entertained, more so, when second application is initiated 13 years after the first order. I am, therefore, of the view that the order of the Deputy Commissioner insofar as it relates to setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner is correct, but, the order insofar as it relates to setting aside the first order dated - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4331 WP No. 7398 of 2024 10.04.2003, whereby proceedings had been dropped at the instance of the applicant cannot be sustained. In an appeal in which the order dated 10.04.2003 was not even challenged and that too in an appeal filed by the purchaser, an order passed in his favour is sought to be set aside which is clearly impermissible. 15. It may also be pertinent to state here that the second application filed by the other son of B.K.Muniyappa, the grantee, has admittedly been initiated after nearly 21 years of the sale. It is settled law that a proceeding for resumption would have to be initiated within a reasonable period. 16. Three Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Gouramma1, Akkayamma2and Manjula3 have laid down the law that notwithstanding the amendment 1 Smt. Gouramma @ Gangamma v. The Deputy Commissioner & Others, W.A. No.100101/2024 2 Smt. Akkayamma v. The State of Karnataka & Others, W.A. No.1081/2023 3 Smt. M. Manjula & Others v. The Deputy Commissioner & Others, W.A. No.210/2023 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4331 WP No. 7398 of 2024 of the year 2023 to the Karnataka Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘the PTCL Act’), if an application for resumption is filed belatedly, the same was required to be annulled. In fact, in Manjula’s case it has been held that delay of 12 years was adequate to annul the proceedings. 17. In my view, the Deputy Commissioner had absolutely no jurisdiction to pass the order insofar as it relates to the order dated 10.04.2003 by which the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the proceedings initiated for resumption as not pressed. Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed. 18. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE HNM, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52