- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:701 WP No. 20568 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.20568 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. V.L.REGO S/O LATE A.L.REGO AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI.G.RAMESH S/O GADIKACHALAM AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O NO.30, 4TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.VIRUPAKSHAIAH P H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT K G ROAD BANGALORE 560009 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN K G ROAD BANGALORE - 560009 3. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK K R PURAM, BANGALORE 560036 Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:701 WP No. 20568 of 2024 4. SMT.VENKATALAKSHMAMMA W/O MUNIYAPPA @ DODDAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS 5. SMT.JAYAMMA W/O MUNIYAPPA @ DODDAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE - 562123 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MANJUNATHA K, HCGP FOR R.1 TO 3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 25.04.2024 IN R.P.NO.90/2023 VIDE ANNX-J PASSED BY THE R-1 AUTHORITY HOLDING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 in respect of the petition lands. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:701 WP No. 20568 of 2024 2. Facts leading to the case are as under; The subject matter of the petition lands are agricultural lands bearing Sy. Nos.178 and 179 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas each. It is not in dispute that these lands are granted lands and originally belonged to respondent Nos.4 and 5. The petitioner is asserting title based on the registered sale deed dated 30.06.1995. 3. The core issue before this Court is to determine whether the petitioner, whose name has been ordered to be deleted from the RTC extracts following the restoration order passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (commonly referred to as the 'PTCL Act'), can claim to be an aggrieved party as a result of such deletion. The petitioner contends that the order has adversely impacted his rights, necessitating judicial scrutiny. 4. The case records indicate that the petitioner is aggrieved by the resumption order passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner, which declared the petitioner’s sale - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:701 WP No. 20568 of 2024 deed null and void under the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. This declaration effectively rendered the petitioner's purchase invalid, thereby altering the legal status of the land in question. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner exercised his statutory right to appeal under Section 5A of the PTCL Act, filing an appeal before respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner. The appeal, which seeks to challenge the validity of the resumption order and its consequential effects, is currently pending consideration before the Deputy Commissioner. 5. Taking these crucial facts into account, it becomes evident that the petitioner, at this stage, lacks the legal standing or locus standi to challenge the Deputy Commissioner’s decision. Respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner has reversed the order of respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner and directed the restoration of the Respodents name in the RTC extracts. However, given that the appeal under Section 5A of the PTCL Act is still pending and remains sub judice, any challenge to the Deputy Commissioner’s order would be premature. Until the appellate authority renders a conclusive decision on the petitioner’s - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:701 WP No. 20568 of 2024 claims regarding the resumption order and the sale deed's nullification, this Court is constrained from entertaining the petitioner’s grievance regarding the RTC entry at this juncture. 6. The petitioner’s name, now, is deleted pursuant to the restoration order passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submits that no stay is granted by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, the restoration order of the private respondents’ name to the RTC based on the restoration order will be subject to outcome of the appeal pending before respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A of the ‘PTCL Act’. Keeping all contentions kept open, the writ petition stands disposed off. The petitioner is at liberty to seek redressal of his grievance in the pending appeal before respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5