- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4426-DB W.A. No.1238/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.1238/2022 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAXMAMMA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS W/O LATE DODDAIAH. 2. SRI. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE DODDAIAH. 3. SRI. KUMARA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O LATE DODDAIAH. 4. SRI. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O LATE DODDAIAH. ALL ARE R/AT. HOUSE NO.38 MUDIGERE VILLAGE MASARANGALA POST MALLIPATNA HOBLI ARAKALAGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. JAYAKARA SHETTY H, ADV.,) Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4426-DB W.A. No.1238/2022 AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAKALESHPURA SUB-DIVISION HASSAN DISTRICT. 3. SRI. H.R. AGANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O LATE RANGAIAH R/AT. VIJAPUR COLONY KASABA HOBLI ARAKALAGUD TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DEVARAJ C.H. GOVT., ADV., FOR R1 & R2 SRI. VARUN P, ADV., FOR R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.07.2021 MADE IN WP No.14220/2008 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL AND KINDLY DISMISS THE WP No.14220/2008 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4426-DB W.A. No.1238/2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the grantee under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 13.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14220/2008(SC-ST). 2. Heard. 3. Sri.H.Jayakara Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the order of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the material available on record and calls for interference in this appeal. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the sale made by the original grantee was in violation of the grant condition and the sale was during the non alienation period of 15 years. It is further submitted that the legal representatives of the grantee are entitled for restoration of land in their favour and respondent No.2 has appreciated the law and fact and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4426-DB W.A. No.1238/2022 ordered for restoration of land, however the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by respondent No.3. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 4. Sri.Devaraj C.H., learned Government Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2 supports the order passed by respondents No.1 & 2 - Authorities. 5. Sri.Varun P., learned counsel for respondent No.3 supports the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the order of the learned Single Judge is in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material available on record and we have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. 7. The material available on record indicates that the land measuring 2 acres in Sy.No.3, block No.19, situated at Mudhigeri village, Mallipattana Hobli, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4426-DB W.A. No.1238/2022 Arakalagoodu Taluk, Hassan District, was granted to one Smt.Lakkamma @ Lakshmamma W/o. Sannaiah. The records indicate that the original grantee has alienated the land in question vide registered sale deed dated 17.04.1969 in favour of the mother of the respondent No.3 herein. 8. The jurisdictional Tahasildar sent a communication to respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner, Sakaleshapura, pointing out that the alienation of the original grantee is in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'PTCL Act'). Respondent No.2 has initiated suo moto proceedings under Section 5 of the PTCL Act and passed an order dated 01.06.2006 directing resumption of land in question in favour of the legal representatives of the grantee. The said order of respondent No.2 was challenged before respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner by the legal representative of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4426-DB W.A. No.1238/2022 the purchaser i.e., respondent No.3 herein, and the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 30.09.2008 dismissed the appeal. The order of respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 dated 01.06.2006 and 30.09.2008 respectively are assailed by respondent No.3 before the learned Single Judge in the W.P.No.14220/2008 which came to be allowed. The learned Single Judge taking note of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another1 and Vivek M.Hinduja vs. M.Aswatha2 held that neither the grantee nor the authority can initiate action under the provisions of the PTCL Act beyond reasonable period. The said finding of the learned Single Judge is strictly in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions. 1 (2020) 14 SCC 232 2 (2019) 1 Kant LJ 819 (SC) - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4426-DB W.A. No.1238/2022 9. In the instant case, the initiation of suo moto proceedings by respondent No.2 is beyond reasonable period i.e., after the period of more than 35 years from the date of sale deed dated 17.04.1969, and we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge calling for any interference in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11