- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24157 WP NO.10857 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.10857 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: SRI. V. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT HEMARLAHALLI VILLAGE, JANGAMKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MUNIRAJA M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101. 4. SRI. SHASHIKUMAR S/O KRISHNAPPA AGE: MAJOR R/AT HEMARLAHALLI VILLAGE, JANGAMKOTE HOBLI, Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24157 WP NO.10857 OF 2025 SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21ST MARCH, 2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN CASE NO. RA/SC.ST/01/2022-23 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF LAND MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 3 ACRE 37 GUNTAS IN SURVEY NO.98 OF HEMARLAHALLI VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT; AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 21st March, 2025 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner in Case No.RA/SC.ST/01/2022-23 in respect of the land measuring to an extent of 3 acre 37 guntas in Survey No.98 of Hemaralahalli Village, Jangamakote Hobli, Sidlaghatta Taluk. 2. Heard Sri. Muniraja M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Savithramma, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24157 WP NO.10857 OF 2025 3. Sri. Muniraja M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the land in question has been granted in favour of Chikkamuthappa to an extent of 3 acre 37 guntas in Survey No.98 of Hemaralahalli Village, Jangamakote Hobli, Shidlaghatta Taluk by the respondent No.3 upon receipt of upset price on 02nd November, 1978. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that, the land in question has been granted in favour of Chikkamuthappa, great grandfather of the respondent No.4, however, proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'PTCL Act'). 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of SMT. KUMARI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS made in Writ Petition No.26018 of 2022 decided on 10th January, 2025 and in the case of SMT. M. MANJULA AND OTHERS vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS made in Writ Appeal No.210 of 2023 decided on 25th - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24157 WP NO.10857 OF 2025 November, 2024 and contended that the impugned proceedings before the respondents 2 and 3 is non-est. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 5. Per contra Smt. Savithramma, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner and submitted that conditions have been stipulated in the order of grant made in favour of the said Chikkamuthappa, great grandfather of the respondent No.4. Accordingly, learned Additional Government Advocate argued that, no interference be called for in this writ petition. 6. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful examination of Official Memorandum dated 21st September, 1977 (Annexure- B), the same would indicate that the land in question has been granted in favour of the great grandfather of the respondent No.4 under the Bagar Hukum cultivation on receipt of upset price by the respondent No.3-Tahsildar. This Court, in the case of SMT. KUMARI (supra) at paragraphs 69 and 70 held as follows: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24157 WP NO.10857 OF 2025 "69. It is therefore clear that in cases of lands granted by virtue of an order regularising unauthorised occupation, it is not the Government which grants the land and consequently, just as in the case of lands granted under the Land Reforms Act, the land so granted would fall outside the purview of granted land as defined under the PTCL Act and consequently, the provisions of said PTCL Act cannot be invoked to resume the land when alienated in contravention of the terms of the grant. 70. 70. The proposition of law that would result from the above mentioned analysis is that a land granted to a person by virtue of a recommendation made by the Committee constituted under Section 94A of the KLR Act is not a granted land as defined under Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act and consequently, no proceedings can be initiated for resuming and for restitution of such a land under the provisions of the PTCL Act." (emphasis supplied) 7. Following the law declared by this Court in the case of SMT. KUMARI (supra), wherein, it is held that the grant made under Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is not a granted land as defined under Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act and therefore, I am of the view that the land granted in favour of the great grandfather of the respondent No.4 herein does not attract Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act and the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24157 WP NO.10857 OF 2025 proceedings initiated under the provisions of the PTCL Act is non-est. Therefore, I find force in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to quash the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, I pass the following: O R D E R 1) Writ Petition is allowed; 2) Order dated 21st March, 2025 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner in Case No.RA/SC.ST/01/2022- 23 is hereby set-aside. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69