- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16943 WP No. 16016 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 16016 OF 2022 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. 1(a) SRI. T. VENKATAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS., SMT. MUNIYAMMA, W/O. LATE T. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 1(b) 1(b)(1) SRI. MUNIRAJAPPA B. V. SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS., SMT. MUNI YELLAMMA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O. LATE MUNIRAJAPPA. B. V. 1(b)(2) SMT. HINDUJA. B. M. AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNIRAJAPPA. B. V., 1(b)(3) SRI. VIVEK. B. M. AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNIRAJAPPA. B. V., 1(b)(4) SRI. PRASHANTH. B. M. AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNIRAJAPPA. B. V., 1(c) SRI. MANJUNATH S/O. LATE T. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16943 WP No. 16016 of 2022 ALL ARE R/AT BELAGERE VILLAGE, VARTHURU HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 087. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHAILESH KUMAR.R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN, BENGALURU-560 030. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 002. 3. SRI. N.CHANDRASHEKAR., S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY., AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 4. SRI. RAJASHEKAR., S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, BOTH R-3 AND R-4 R/AT DOOR No.243, HAL COLONY, BENGALURU-560 017. …RESPONDENTS (BYSRI.BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI. BIPIN HEGDE FOR SRI. MANJUNATHA.N.BYRAREDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THE ABOVE PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2022 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16943 WP No. 16016 of 2022 BANGALORE IN SC.ST(APPEAL)12/1995-96, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B, ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CAV ORDER 1. On 29.04.1940 the land bearing Sy.No.68/2 of Balagere village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, measuring 2 acres was granted to Kari Thippaiah @ Thippaiah, who belonged to Scheduled Caste. 2. On 22.02.1961, this land was sold in favour of Narayana Reddy under a registered sale deed in contravention of the terms of the grant. 3. In the year 1984-85 i.e., nearly 23 years after the sale and six years after the Karnataka Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘the PTCL - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16943 WP No. 16016 of 2022 Act’) came into force, an application for resumption was made by the legal representatives of Thippaiah. But, this was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner on 27.05.1988. 4. An appeal was preferred by the legal representative of Thippaiah i.e., T.Venkatappa in the year 1996 i.e., after lapse of 8 years and the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal as against which the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P. No.274/2000 and the order of the Deputy Commissioner was set aside and the order was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner. 5. During the pendency of W.P. No.274/2000, referred to above, the sons of Venkatappa filed another application for resumption, notwithstanding the rejection of the application for resumption filed by T.Venkatappa. The Assistant Commissioner proceeded to allow the application filed by his wife and children by order dated 07.05.2002. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16943 WP No. 16016 of 2022 6. The sons of Narayana Reddy, the purcahser, challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 26.04.2004 allowed the appeal. 7. During the pendency of the aforementioned two resumption proceedings, one more resumption proceeding was initiated by the wife of T.Venkatappa, i.e., Muttamma and her daughter Arakeramma. This application for resumption was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner by an order dated 11.10.2006 and this order was challenged by preferring an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order in the appeal that the appeal will await the result of W.P. No.7459/2005, which had been filed by three children of Venkatappa challenging the order of Deputy Commissioner dated 26.04.2004 (by which the appeal of Narayana Reddy had been allowed). - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16943 WP No. 16016 of 2022 8. In the year 2011, Venkatappa's wife and children filed W.P. No.10920/2011 challenging the order dated 28.10.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, whereby it ordered that the appeal should await the result of W.P. No.7459/2005. 9. On 17.11.2014, the W.P. No.7459/2005 filed by sons of Venkatappa and W.P. No.10920/2011 filed by the wife and children of Venkatappa were disposed of and the matter was remitted back to the Special Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration. 10. On 30.03.2022, all the three appeals i.e., the appeal filed by Venkatappa, the appeal filed by wife and children of Venkatappa and the appeal filed by Muttamma and her daughter and also the appeal filed by the purchaser were taken up for consideration. 11. On remand, the Deputy Commissioner considered the appeals filed by Venkatappa, the appeal filed by - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16943 WP No. 16016 of 2022 the purchaser and also the appeal filed by Muttamma and her daughter Arakeramma together, and came to the conclusion that the proceedings for resumption were initiated belatedly i.e., 25 years after the grant and proceeded to dismiss the appeal filed by the legal representatives of the grantee. The Deputy Commissioner consequentially allowed the appeal filed by the purchaser. 12. As against this order of the Deputy Commissioner, W.P. No.21790/2022 was preferred by Arakeramma, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn. 13. This petition i.e., W.P. No.16016/2022 has been filed by the legal representatives of Venkatappa. 14. The facts narrated above clearly indicate that the proceedings for resumption were made in the year 1984-85 i.e., nearly about 24 years after the grant. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following Division Bench judgments - - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16943 WP No. 16016 of 2022 i. Smt.M. Manjula & Others vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District & Others [W.A. No.210/2023]; ii. Smt.Gowramma vs. Deputy Commissioner, Haveri & Others [W.A. No.100101/2024]; and iii. Smt.Akkayamma vs. The State of Karnataka & Others [W.A. No.1081/2023]. 16. In the light of these Division Bench judgments, the reasoning of the Deputy Commissioner that the initiation of resumption proceedings was belated and could not be entertained, cannot be found fault with. 17. An argument is, however, advanced regarding the genuineness of an order of permission said to have been granted by the Government under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. A direction was issued by respondent No.1 to carry out an enquiry in relation to the endorsement dated 23.06.1960, which is stated to be a permission granted by the Government for the purchase of the property. It is the case of the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16943 WP No. 16016 of 2022 petitioner that this endorsement was concocted and, therefore, the enquiry is necessary. 18. In my view, this contention does not require any consideration for the simple reason that assuming that no permission was granted to purchase the land and the alienation was in contravention of the terms of the grant, the Deputy Commissioner, as already observed, has come to the conclusion that the initiation of proceedings for resumption was belated and hence could not be entertained. This is, in fact, the proposition of law that has been laid down by the Three Division Bench judgments of this Court. In the light of this undisputed fact that the proceedings were initiated belatedly, the question as to whether permission was granted or not would not be a relevant issue for the purpose of deciding this case. 19. Since the proceedings have been initiated belatedly, the same have been rightly rejected by the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16943 WP No. 16016 of 2022 authorities, I find no reason to entertain this Writ Petition. This Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 150