- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10301 WP No. 52766 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 52766 OF 2014 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: MR. MOHSIN ALI VAKIL S/O MR. WAHID ALI VAKIL AGED 62 YEARS, C/O NO.78 KORMANGALA INDUSTRIAL AREA JYOTHI NIVAS COLLEGE ROAD KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B. RAMESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BEHIND REVENUE BUILDING K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION REVENUE BUILDING, K.G. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 009 4. MUNISWAMY AGED 64 YEARS S/O CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10301 WP No. 52766 of 2014 SINCE DEAD REP BY HIS LRS 4(A) SRI. VENKATA RAJU S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY MAJOR IN AGE 4(B) SRI. RAMAPPA S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY MAJOR IN AGE 4(C) SMT. AMMAYYA D/O. LATE MUNISWAMY MAJOR IN AGE 4(D) SMT. JAYAMMA D/O. LATE MUNISWAMY MAJOR IN AGE ALL ARE RESIDING GOWRANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT. 5. C. BANU PRAKASH AGED 42 YEARS S/O SRI. C. SATHYANARAYANAPPA R/A. NO.238/64, 6TH CROSS JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 070 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3, SRI. MUNIRAJA .M., ADVOCATE FOR R4 (A TO D) VIDE ORDER DATED 21.11.2024, NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.4.2014 PASSED BY THE R-2 AND THE ORDER DATED 20.6.2006 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANN-L & G AND ETC., - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10301 WP No. 52766 of 2014 THIS WRIT 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. The land bearing Sy.No.33 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas was the subject matter of the proceedings for regularization of unauthorized occupation. 2. Muniswamy had made an application in respect of this particular land and the Assistant Commissioner had regularized his unauthorized occupation by order dated 22.05.1978 and saguvali chit was also issued on 26.04.1979. This fact is established by perusal of extract of saguvali chit issue register. 3. Muniswamy sold this land to the fifth respondent - C Banu Prakash under the registered sale deed on 14.08.1995 and the fifth respondent in turn sold the land in favour of the petitioner on 09.12.2004. 4. Muniswamy, thereafter, in the year 2005 made an application for resumption contending that the land - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10301 WP No. 52766 of 2014 that was granted to him would come within the purview of granted land as defined under PTCL Act and since the alienation was made after the act had come into force, the same was ab initio void and the land was resumed. 5. The Assistant Commissioner accepted the application for resumption, as against which, an appeal was filed by the present petitioner contending that he was not even made as party and therefore, the order of resumption would be unsustainable. The Deputy Commissioner, however, rejected his claim and dismissed the appeal and as a consequence, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. This Court in Writ Petition No.26018 of 2022 disposed off on 10.01.2025 has held that the land which has been granted to an unauthorized occupant by virtue of his unauthorized occupation cannot be considered as granted land as defined under the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10301 WP No. 52766 of 2014 PTCL Act and therefore, the provisions of PTCL Act cannot be invoked to resume the said land. 7. In this case, since Annexure- A indicates that the land was granted to Muniswamy by virtue of his unauthorized occupation. Merely because he incidentally belongs to a Scheduled Caste, that would not lead to an inference that the land is a granted land as defined under PTCL Act and consequently, the invocation of the provisions of PTCL Act for resumption would be totally without jurisdiction. 8. Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside and the application for resumption is dismissed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE *bgn/- CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0