- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30472 WP No. 21294 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 21294 OF 2025 (LR) BETWEEN: M/S SAMMYS MOUNTAIN VILLAS LTD A COMPANY LIMITED BY ITS LIABILITY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT FORMERLY KNOWN AS SAMMY ADVENTURE LAND LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.9 2ND FLOOR, BEL AIR DRIVE, MEKHRI CIRCLE BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE 560 032 HEREIN REP. BY ITS COMMERCIAL HEAD AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR ANOOP VANJANI S/O LATE SRI NARAYANADAS AGED 60 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. GANESH SHENOY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30472 WP No. 21294 of 2025 TUBAGERE - DODDABALLAPURA ROAD, DODDABALLAPURA-PIN CODE 561 203 3. THE TAHASILDAR, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, DEVANAHALLI, PIN CODE-562 110 4. K.VENKATARAMAIAH, S/O KRISHNAPPA, NO.16, PUSH PALYA, RMV II STAGE EXTENSION, BEHIND RAILWAY COLONY, BANGALORE 560094 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA., AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12-05-2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, IN PROCEEDINGS LRF-SR394/2003-04 (ANNEXURE-Q) ON HIS FILE, PASSED UNDER 5.83 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents No.1 to 3. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30472 WP No. 21294 of 2025 2. The petitioner is seeking to raise a challenge to the order passed by the respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-division, for contravention of the provisions contained in Section 79A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in case bearing No.LRF:SR:394/2003-04. However, learned Additional Government Advocate has raised an objection that the impugned order at Annexure-Q is passed against the 4th respondent and not against the petitioner. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that this Court has considered this aspect of the matter in many such cases including W.P.No.20096/2021 dated 01.09.2022, where this Court has held that proceedings initiated under Sections 79A and B against a person cannot be set aside at the instance of a subsequent purchaser, even if he has purchased the entire lands. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that the respondent No.4 had purchased the lands in question under registered Sale Deed dated 13.08.1992 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30472 WP No. 21294 of 2025 and the lands were converted in the year 1994. The petitioner herein purchased the lands on 10.07.1996 and the proceedings have been initiated by the Assistant Commissioner only in the year 2003, long after the petitioner purchased the property. In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner gets locus to challenge the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 4. In the considered opinion of this Court, such a contention raised at the hands of the petitioner cannot be accepted. There may be other disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4 and this Court is not concerned with the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4. As already held by this Court, proceedings initiated under Section 79A and B are, having regard to the legal standing of the purchaser in purchasing agricultural lands and the issue which is required to be considered by the Assistant Commissioner is only whether there is violation of the provisions of Section 79A and B at - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30472 WP No. 21294 of 2025 the hands of the purchaser. It is in that view of the matter that this Court has held that a third party or a subsequent purchaser cannot be permitted to raise a challenge to such an order passed by the competent authority. 5. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed, while reserving liberty to the petitioner to get the respondent No.4 to challenge the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate is granted four weeks time to file his memo of appearance. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KLY CT: JL