B. NARAYANASWAMY vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61649
WP No. 3063 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010052892024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

WRIT PETITION NO. 3063 OF 2024 (SC/ST)

BETWEEN:

1. B.NARAYANASWAMY,
S/O. LATE BACHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

2. NANJEGOWDA,
S/O. LATE BACHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
KUNDANA VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562110.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. A.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHANDRAPPA V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BEERASANDRA VILLAGE,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110.












Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61649
WP No. 3063 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010052892024



3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
DODDABALLAPURA,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

4. THE TAHSILDAR,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
DEVANAHALLI - 562 110.

5. SMT. NARAYANAMMA,
W/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.9, 20TH CROSS,
KADAMABANAGARA,
PEENYA 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 058.

6. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
D/O. LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.805,
4TH MAIN ROAD, A BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

7. SMT. SAKAMMA,
D/O. LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.68,
7TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS,
NEW KEB OFFICE, J.C. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 086.

8. SMT. PADMA
D/O. LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1174,
2ND CROSS, 7TH MAIN,
KAMALA NEHRU EXTENSION,
YESHWANTHAPURA,
BENGALURU - 560 086.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61649
WP No. 3063 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010052892024



9. SRI. C.RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
S/O. LATE ANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

10. SRI. A.RAJENDRA,
S/O. LATE ANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

11. SRI. A.RAMESHA,
S/O. LATE ANJIAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

12. SRI. A.GANGADHARA,
S/O. LATE ANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

13. SRI. A.KRISHNAMURTHY,
S/O. LATE ANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

RESPONDENTS NO.9 TO 13 ARE
RESIDING AT KUNDANA VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562110.

14. SRI. B.ASHWATHAPPA,
S/O. LATE BACHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KUNDANA VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562110.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. T.SUNIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R8 - ABSENT;
SRI. VENKATESH P.DALWAI, ADVOCATE
FOR R9 TO R11 AND R13;
R12 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
SRI. V.NAGAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 - ABSENT)

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61649
WP No. 3063 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010052892024




THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.A.Ravishankar., counsel on behalf of
Sri.Chandrappa V., for the petitioners; Smt.Savithramma.,
Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to
4, and Sri.Venkatesh P. Dalwai., counsel for respondent
Nos.9 to 11 and 13, appeared in person.

There is no representation on behalf of respondent
Nos.4 and respondent Nos.5 to 8.

2. The writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs.
a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, order or
direction by quashing the Official Memorandum
issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61649
WP No. 3063 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010052892024



Rural District, in LND.(De)PTCL:CR:13/2018-19
dated 20.09.2022 vide Annexure-M.

b) To grant such other relief/s as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the interest of
justice and equity.

3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several
contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers
with care.

4. The subject land was originally granted to the
grantee in the year 1963 and was subsequently conveyed
under a registered Sale Deed in the year 1972. Thereafter,
the proceedings for resumption of the land were initiated
before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2005, after
a lapse of nearly 33 years from the date of sale and 26
years from the coming into force of the PTCL Act. The
Assistant Commissioner dismissed the petition. Aggrieved
by the said order, an appeal was preferred before the
Deputy Commissioner, who set aside the order passed by
the Assistant Commissioner.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61649
WP No. 3063 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010052892024



Suffice it to note that the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner was challenged by the purchaser in W.P.
No. 10031/2021. This Court, by order dated 16.06.2021,
granted an interim order of stay of the operation of the
order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. However,
during the pendency of the said proceedings, the original
grantee approached the Government seeking permission
to alienate the subject property. The Government, by
order dated 20.09.2022, proceeded to grant permission
for sale of the property.
5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that,
pursuant to the permission granted by the Government,
the family members of the original grantee conveyed the
subject property in favor of Sri. M. Srinivas under a
registered Sale Deed dated 17.10.2023. It is relevant to
note that the subsequent purchaser filed an application
seeking impleadment in W.P. No. 10031/2021. However,
this Court, by order dated 26.07.2024, rejected the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61649
WP No. 3063 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010052892024



impleading application. Thereafter, an attempt was made
to recall the said order, which was also rejected by this
Court.
6. It is relevant to note that, as on the date of
consideration of the application seeking permission to
alienate the subject property, an interim order of stay
granted by this Court in W.P. No. 10031/2021 was in
operation. Notwithstanding the pendency of the
proceedings and the subsisting interim order, the
Government proceeded to consider the request and grant
permission for alienation of the subject property. Such
action on the part of the Government, without having due
regard to the interim order passed by this Court and the
fact that the matter was pending adjudication, cannot be
sustained in law. Consequently, the permission granted by
the Government, vide order dated 20.09.2022, is liable to
be viewed as having been issued without due
consideration of the subsisting judicial order.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61649
WP No. 3063 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010052892024



7. Accordingly, the Official Memorandum dated
20.09.2022 issued by the Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru Rural District, vide Annexure-M, is hereby
quashed. As this Court has quashed the order at
Annexure-M, the consequences shall follow.

allowed
8. Resultantly, the petition is .
Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order
granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory
applications if any are disposed of.

Sd/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE

AM
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20