- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6530-DB WA No. 1375 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1375 OF 2023 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O MUNIYAPPA R/AT JATHAWARA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE MANDI HOBLI, CHICKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 101. 2. SRI DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O MUNIYAPPA R/AT JATHAWARA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE MANDI HOBLI, CHICKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI N.K. MALLIKARJUNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI A. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI IKRAM PASHA S/O NOORULLA HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6530-DB WA No. 1375 of 2023 FAISAL PASHA S/O IKRAM PASHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT No.1, LAUREL LANE RICHMOND TOWN BENGALURU - 560 025. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 5760 001. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHICKABALLAPUR DISTRICT CHICKABALLAPUR - 562 101. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISISONER CHICKABALLAPUR DISTRICT CHICKABALLAPUR - 562 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MUSRATH TABASUM, ADVOCATE FOR SRI A. RAMU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.1; SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R.2 TO R.4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2023 PASSED IN W.P.NO.1838/2023 (SC-ST) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION, ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6530-DB WA No. 1375 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) Aggrieved by the order dated 28.07.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.1838 of 2023, respondent Nos.4 and 5 therein have preferred this writ appeal. 2. The appellants are stated to be the legal representatives of deceased Chikkagangappa and Sontamma. They belong to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. The said Chikkagangappa and Sontamma participated in a public auction regarding the property which is the subject matter of writ appeal and were successful and hence, a grant certificate was issued in their favour by the authorities concerned upon payment of the agreed consideration. Subsequently, the said property has been alienated and respondent No.1 herein is the present purchaser. On the ground that the transfer of the property in favour of respondent No.1 is in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the PTCL Act') and that the appellants are entitled to resumption and restoration of the said land, they approached respondent No.4-the Assistant Commissioner and their - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6530-DB WA No. 1375 of 2023 application was allowed. Same has been confirmed by respondent No.3-the Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 herein preferred Writ Petition No.1838 of 2023. 3. Learned Single Judge on the ground, as the land was granted in favour of Chikkagangappa and Sontamma for a consideration and that they have purchased the property by way of public auction, it cannot be considered as a granted land for the purposes of the PTCL Act, and also on the ground that there is an inordinate delay of ten years in the appellants herein approaching respondent No.2 in making the necessary application, applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 and in the case of VIVEK M. HINDUJA AND OTHERS. VS. M. ASHWATHA AND OTHERS reported in (2020) 14 SCC 228 and also relying on the judgment passed in B.K.MUNIRAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 4 SCC 451 insofar as it relates to holding the land as not a granted land, has allowed the writ petition and has set aside the order of resumption - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6530-DB WA No. 1375 of 2023 and restoration passed by respondent Nos.4 and 3 herein. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred. 4. It is contended by the appellants that, though the land was purchased by their ancestors for a consideration, it is still required to be considered as a grant land as they belong to Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe and they are entitled to the protection offered under the PTCL Act. It is also contended that delay of ten years is not unreasonable. On the said grounds, it is prayed that writ appeal be allowed and writ petition filed by the original petitioner/respondent No.1 herein be dismissed, by upholding the orders passed by respondent Nos.4 and 3 herein. 5. Per contra, respondent No.1 justifies the order passed by learned Single Judge and prays for dismissal of the writ appeal. 6. Though the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the land has to be considered as a granted land and that there is no unreasonable delay in seeking resumption and restoration of the land from the date on which it was alienated, appellants were unable to show any error in the order of the learned Single Judge - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6530-DB WA No. 1375 of 2023 which is based on the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and interpretation of the provisions of the PTCL Act. 7. As admittedly, the land has been purchased for a consideration though it is styled as a grant, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K.MUNIRAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 4 SCC 451, the land has to be considered as a granted land, as it was purchased for a consideration. In paragraph Nos.18 to 20, 26 and 27 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "18. The document in question which is filed as Annexure P-3, has been styled or titled as "certificate of grant". In order to know the real nature of the document, one has to look into the recitals of the document and not the title of the document. The intention is to be gathered from the recitals in the deed, the conduct of the parties and the evidence on record. It is settled law that the question of construction of a document is to be decided by finding out the intention of the executant, firstly, from a comprehensive reading of the terms of the document itself, and then, by looking into—to the extent permissible—the prevailing circumstances which persuaded the author of the document to execute it. With a view to ascertain the nature of a transaction, the document has to be read as a whole. A sentence or term used may not be determinative of the real nature of transaction. Reference in this regard can be made to the following cases i.e. Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao, Subbegowda v. Thimmegowda and Bishwanath Prasad Singh v. Rajendra Prasad. 19. The above principles make it clear that we have to see terms and conditions and recitals in the document and not - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6530-DB WA No. 1375 of 2023 the title alone. Though the document, according to the appellant, "certificate of grant", perusal of the clauses therein, clearly shows that the land was sold on 4-3-1948 in a public auction and Motappa purchased the same for a price of Rs 408.12. In addition to the recitals, the "darkhast register extract" produced as Annexure 'C' before the High Court also shows that the land in question was sold for a "price". Form I also indicates that the land in question was purchased and what was paid by the purchaser under the said document was the purchase price. 20. In the light of the principles mentioned above and the terms and conditions in the recital clearly show that the land was purchased by Motappa in a public auction for a price. Merely because the document has been styled or titled as "certificate of grant", it cannot be construed that the land was a "granted land" attracting the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, the authorised authorities under the Act and the Rules, on verification of the contents of the document coupled with revenue extract rightly concluded that the land was purchased by Motappa in a public auction for a price even in the year 1948. 26. In the light of the above principles, let us consider whether the High Court committed any error in dismissing the writ petition. We have already referred to the recitals in the document produced before the High Court which though titled as certificate of grant/Saguvali chit, various terms and conditions make it clear that the land was purchased by Motappa in a public auction on payment of a price for Rs 408.12. In addition, the two authorities as well as the High Court adverted to the revenue extract and concluded that it was not a "granted land" and it was purchased in a public auction on payment of a price. 27. In the light of the factual conclusion, we are satisfied that the High Court has rightly refused to quash the orders of the said authorities and dismissed the writ petition. If the factual finding is that the subject-matter of the land was a "granted land" undoubtedly it attracts bar under Section 4 of the Act and follows the conditions as stated in Rules 43(1), (5) and (8)." - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6530-DB WA No. 1375 of 2023 Thus, the land cannot be considered as a granted land and the appellants are not entitled for protection from alienation under the provisions of the PTCL Act. 8. Further, there has been an inordinate delay of more than 10 years in challenging the alienation. This has to be considered unreasonable under the given facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Thus, on both counts, the appellants are not entitled to succeed. Hence, the writ appeal is hereby dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG/VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 91