- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50421 WP No. 7180 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 7180 OF 2014 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NARAYANAPA S/O CHIKKAVENKATA BHOVI @ VENKATA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/A YELLAMMANAPALYA VILLAGE DODDA HAGADE DHAKALE KASABA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT – 562 106. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V VISWANATH SETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. M H BHASKAR REDDY S/O M H P SHIVAREDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A NO.672, 17TH ‘C’ MAIN 6TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA BANGALORE – 560 034. 2. M/S. SHIVAJYOTHI TOWNSHIP PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. N.H. BHASKAR REDDY A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING OFFICE AT NO.698, 2ND FLOOR Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50421 WP No. 7180 of 2014 29TH MAIN, BTM LAYOUT 2ND STAGE BANGALORE – 560 096. 3. M/S AMRUTHA DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP BY ITS PARTNERS N H SARABHA REDDY OFFICE AT NO.C-17 KUDUREMUKH COLONY SARJAPURA ROAD, 2ND BLOCK KORAMANGALA BANGALORE – 560 034. 4. SRI. DHANALAKSHMI GLOBAL CITY PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: SHIVA KRUPA NO.61/68 N.R.I LAYOUT, KALKERE BANGALORE – 560 043. 4(a) MR. R SHANKAR S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 4(b) MR. DHANALAKSHMI W/O R SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 4(c) MR. SHIVAKUMAR MAJOR IN AGE 4(d) MR. MOHAN MANOHAR MUNGALE MAJOR IN AGE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50421 WP No. 7180 of 2014 SL. NO. 4(a) to (d) ARE THE MANAGING PARTNERS OF SRI. DHANALAKSHMI GLOBAL CITY PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: SHIVA KRUPA NO.61/68 N R I LAYOUT KALKERE BANGALORE – 560 043. 5(a) MR. R SHANKAR S/O LATE SRI RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 5(b) MRS. M S DHANALAKSHMI W/O MR R SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS SL. NO.5(a) & (b) ARE REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS OF M/S. SHUBHA PRAGATHI BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.64 OPP: MANJUNATHA NILAYA KACHARKANAHALLI HENNUR MAIN ROAD ST. THOMAS TOWN POST BANGALORE – 560 084. 6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SUB DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN K G ROAD BANGALORE – 560 009. 7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50421 WP No. 7180 of 2014 BANGALORE DISTRICT DISTRICT COMMISSIONER OFFICE K G ROAD BANGALORE – 560 009. 8. SHIVAJYOTHI & AMRUTH TOWNSHIP’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION [R] NO.12, BLOCK-B, SHIVAJYOTHI LAYOUT DODDAHAGADE, KASABA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR. K.G. VALLABHA RAMU …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V SESHU, HCGP FOR R6 & R7; SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R8; R1, R2, R4(A TO D), R5(A & B) ARE SERVED; R3 & R4(B) – NOTICE H/S V/O DATED.17/10/2019) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN SC.ST(A)/17/12-13 ON THE FILE OF 7TH RESPONDENT HEREIN UNDER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50421 WP No. 7180 of 2014 ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition is being filed by the legal heirs of the grantee, calling in question the correctness of the order at Annexure - A dated 07.12.2023. 2. In terms of the order at Annexure - A, the appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner by the purchaser came to be allowed and the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 11.05.2012 came to be set aside. The order of the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure - B was an order passed at the instance of the legal representatives of the original grantee. The proceedings were initiated under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act), asserting that the land was granted land and the sale of land was in violation of provisions of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner, by his order had declared that the sale deeds as well as the joint development - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50421 WP No. 7180 of 2014 agreement in respect of land in Sy.No. 53 (New No. 92), measuring 5 acres 21 guntas situated at Doddahagade Village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, as being null and void and further direction was made to the Government to take over possession, free from all encumbrances and restore the same in favour of the original grantee. 3. It is to be noticed that the date of the sale deeds referred to in the conclusion portion of the order of the Assistant Commissioner has been wrongly mentioned as 27.02.1997 instead of 27.12.1997. Such an error would become apparent. On perusal of the sale deed dated 27.12.1997 enclosed along with a memo, which is a part of the record, the order of the Assistant Commissioner was however set aside by the order of the Deputy Commissioner on certain grounds and it is the order of the Deputy Commissioner that has been challenged in the writ petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50421 WP No. 7180 of 2014 4. The brief facts are that Chikka Venkata Bhovi, who is the father of the petitioner, is stated to be the original grantee. It is stated that the land came to be granted. It is submitted that sale deeds were executed by the grantees and a joint development agreement is also stated to have been entered into. The proceedings for cancellation of the sale deeds have been in violation of provisions of the PTCL Act came to be instituted in the year 2011-2012. 5. It must be noticed that for the purpose of application of provisions of the Act, the land has to be granted land in terms of Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act. As rightly pointed out by the counsel appearing for the subsequent purchaser from the respondent No.1 that the Full Bench of this Court in W.P No.60483/2016 has categorically held that once land is converted under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 it is to be treated to be diverted land and would no longer remain granted land. The Full Bench of this - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50421 WP No. 7180 of 2014 Court in W.P No.60483/2016 has observed in paragraph (D) at page Nos.28 and 29, as follows: “(D) In the instant case, the statute namely PTCL, specifically provides that the permission for transfer/acquisition by transfer in respect of any granted land cannot be made except after obtaining prior approval of the Government. Thus, the transfer/acquisition by transfer in granted land has to be made in the manner prescribed under Section 4(2) of the Act i.e. the special enactment and an order of conversion passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95(2) of the Act granted to an occupant of the land to use the land for purposes other than agriculture, cannot be construed as fulfillment of requirement under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. It is also noteworthy that competent authorities under both the provisions viz., Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act and under Section 95(2) of the Act are different, viz., the State Government and Deputy Commissioner respectively. The object and purpose of both the provisions contained in different enactment is entirely different. The scope of enquiry under both the provisions is entirely different. Both the aforesaid provisions operate in different fields. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50421 WP No. 7180 of 2014 However, as we have already held that once the land is diverted, the same ceases to be a 'granted land' under the provisions of the PTCL Act. Therefore, in case of a diverted land, the requirement of obtaining the permission under Section 4(2) of the Act does not arise as the permission has to be obtained only in respect of 'granted land' and the land on conversion no longer remains 'granted land'. Therefore, the issue whether an order of conversion passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue act, 1964 can be construed as prior permission by the Government satisfying the requirements under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act does not arise in case of diverted lands. The aforesaid issue is therefore, answered accordingly.” 6. This would make it clear that once land is diverted in terms of order under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the same would cease to be a granted land under the provisions of the PTCL Act. If that were to be so, the question of obtaining permission for sale under the provisions of the PTCL Act would not apply. The order of the Full Bench of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50421 WP No. 7180 of 2014 this Court was taken up before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.21079/2021 and the said Special Leave to Appeal came to be rejected, affirming the order of the Full Bench. If that were to be so, the present writ petition would have to be rejected recording a finding that the land having been converted as per order of the Deputy Commissioner on 20.08.1997 and copy of the order of conversion filed along with synopsis on 24.10.2025 has resulted in change in the nature of land having been diverted in terms of order passed under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 7. It is further noticed that the sale deeds were dated 27.12.1997 with respect to an extent measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.92 and further sale deed on the same date of 27.12.1997 relating to further extent of 1 acre. 8. Admittedly, both the sale deeds were after the date of order of conversion. Proceedings before the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50421 WP No. 7180 of 2014 Assistant Commissioner came to be initiated only in the year 2011-2012. 9. In light of the land not being granted land, the question of entering into other aspects on merits would not arise. In the present case, it is also noticed that the order of conversion was also at the instance of the legal representative of the grantee, which fact is not controverted. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected and the order of the Deputy Commissioner is affirmed. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45