- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22542 WP NO.28287 OF 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.28287 OF 2024 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE HUCHAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT THALAGUPPE VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120. 2. SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O LATE MANJUNATAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE THALAGUPPE, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120. 3. SRI. YESHWANTHA M. W/O LATE MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT HOSSAHALLI VILLAGE THALAGUPPE, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DSITRICT - 562 120. 4. SMT. NAGARATHANA M. D/O LATE MANJUNATHA W/O KUMAR B. AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT NO.11, CHIKKAGOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE, NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE, INDIRA NAGAR, LAKSHMIPURA, BENGALURU - 562 123. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MAHESWARAPPA M., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22542 WP NO.28287 OF 2024 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, NEAR KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVANA, BENGALURU - 560 009. 4. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVANA, BENGALURU - 560 009. 5. SRI. VENKAATAPPA S/O THIMMADASAIAH AGE: MAJOR RA/T BALAGIRI, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANGARA - 562 120. 6. SRI. GHANGHADHERAA S/O GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.135, 11TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE - 560 072. 7. SRI. SRINIVAS S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/ AT NO.538, MANIVILLAS GARDEN, KAMALANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22542 WP NO.28287 OF 2024 8. SRI. VINAYKUMAR S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/ AT NO.538, MANIVILLAS GARDEN KAMALANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079. 9. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O PUTTARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS. 10. SRI. ASHWATHNARAYAN V. S/O PUTTARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 11. SRI. RAMESH P. S/O PUTTARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 12. SRI. SRINIVASA MURTHY P. S/O PUTTARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 13. SRI. LOKESH P. S/O PUTTARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 14. SMT. LALITHAMMA P. D/O PUTTARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 15. SMT. MANJULA P. D/O PUTTARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 16. SMT. SAVITHA P. D/O PUTTARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22542 WP NO.28287 OF 2024 RESPONDENTS 9 TO 16 ARE R/ AT NO.801, 2ND CROSS, 2ND PHASE , BEML LAYOUT, 5TH STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 098. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH BABURAO, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22ND MAY, 2023 PASSED IN PTCL NO.3/2023-24 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE RTC AND MUTATION IN MR NO.T2/2023-24 DATED 20TH JULY, 2023 ENTERED IN THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT NO.6-GANGHADHERAA VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.4-TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK TO ENTER THE KHATHA IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 7 AND 8 HEREIN IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY; AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Sri. Siddharth Baburao, learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents 1 to 4. 2. In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 22nd May, 2023 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.2 in Case No.PTCL 3/2023-24; inter alia sought for quashing the RTC and Mutation in MR No.T2/2023-24 dated 20th July, 2023 (Annexure-F) made by the respondent-Authorities. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22542 WP NO.28287 OF 2024 3. The facts in nutshell for adjudication of this writ petition are that the land bearing Survey No.11/4P of Pattanagere Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk measuring to an extent of 2 acres was acquired by the father of the petitioner No.1; and grandfather of petitioners 3, 4 and respondents 7 and 8 herein as per the grant order dated 26th May, 1942. Thereafter, the respondent No.5-Venkatappa had purchased the aforementioned property as per registered Sale Deed dated 25th May, 1972. It is also stated in the petition that the said Venkatappa had sold the property in question in favour of the respondent No.6 through two Sale Deeds dated 01st March, 1995. The case of the petitioners is that the Sale deed executed in favour of the vendor of the respondent No.6 i.e., the respondent No.5-Venkatappa itself is in violation of the conditions stipulated in the grant certificate and therefore, the same is hit by the provisions contained under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, herein after referred to as 'PTCL Act'). It is also stated in the petition that the respondent No.6 had misguided the Trial Court in Original Suit No.782 of 2023 and therefore, the Sale made in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22542 WP NO.28287 OF 2024 favour of the respondent No.6 as per registered Sale Deeds dated 01st March, 1995 is hit by the provisions of PTCL Act. Accordingly, petitioners sought for interference of this Court. 4. Heard Sri. M. Maheshwarappa, learned counsel appearing for petitioners; Sri. Siddharth Baburao, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4; and Sri. Bipin Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6. 5. Sri. M. Maheshwarappa, learned counsel appearing for petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the proceedings in Original Suit No.782 of 2023 pending consideration before the competent Civil Court and contended that the respondent No.6 had misguided the Court in respect of the claim made by the claimants herein, who are the legal heirs of the original grantees and therefore, the sale made by the ancestors of the petitioners herein in favour of the respondent No.5-Venkatappa on 25th May, 1972 is in violation of the provisions contained under the PTCL Act. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22542 WP NO.28287 OF 2024 6. Per contra, Sri. Bipin Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 submitted that the grant was made in favour of the ancestors of the petitioners during the year-1942 and thereafter, the land in question was sold in favour of the respondent No.5-Venkatappa and in turn the said Venkatappa sold the same in favour of the respondent No.6 by way of two Sale Deeds dated 01st March, 1995. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 further submitted that the land in question has been converted by the competent authority on 22nd February, 2003. In this regard, he places reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of SRI. MUNNAIAH AND OTHERS vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS made in Writ Petition No.60483 of 2016 decided on 05th July, 2021 and contended that, since the land in question has been converted for non- agricultural purpose, the same has lost its nature as agriculture land. He also invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 25th November, 2024 passed 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 November, 2024 and contended that the delay in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22542 WP NO.28287 OF 2024 approaching the authority has to be considered as in the present case the grant was made during the year-1942 and at this juncture, petitioners cannot be permitted to agitate their rights over the schedule property belatedly. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Sri. Siddharth Baburao, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4 sought to justify the action of the respondent-Authorities. 8. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the land in question has been granted in favour of the ancestors of the petitioners during the year-1942 and thereafter the same was sold in favour of the respondent No.5-Venkatappa as per registered Sale Deed dated 25th May, 1972 and in turn, the said Venkatappa sold the same to the respondent No.6 through two sale deeds dated 01st March, 1995. Taking into consideration the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. M. MANJULA (supra), I am of the view that the legal heirs cannot enure the benefit of the original grantee by initiating proceedings after a lapse of three decades, belatedly. That apart, the land in question has been converted by the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22542 WP NO.28287 OF 2024 competent authority for non-agricultural purpose on 22nd February, 2003. In that view of the matter, following the law declared by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of SRI. MUNNAIAH (supra), I am of the view that, no interference be called for in this writ petition as the nature of land itself has lost its existence on account of conversion of land by the competent authority for non-agricultural purpose. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28