VENKATALAKSHMAMMA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

- 1 -
WA No. 878 of 2026


TH
RESERVED ON 29 SEPTEMBER 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

WRIT APPEAL NO.878 OF 2026 (SCST)

BETWEEN:

VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LAKSHMINARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT MARUTHI BADAVANE,
SRINIVASAPURA TOWN,
SRINIVASAPURA – 563135.
…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SAMARTH S. MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.G. MUNISWAMY GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR-563101.

2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KOLAR SUBDIVISION,
KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR-563101.

3. JAYARAMANAIDU,
S/O VENKATARAMA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT GANDHINAGAR VILLAGE,
ROAYALPAD HOBLI,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT – 563135.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI. RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)



















Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: High Court
of Karnataka

- 2 -
WA No. 878 of 2026


THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 28.06.2023 PASSED IN
W.P.NO.12737/2022 (SC-ST); CONSEQUENTLY, RESTORE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR IN
PTCL/08/2019 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR DISTRICT IN
LND/SC/ST/42/2008-09 AND ETC.

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA)

1. The appellant, who was respondent No.3 in W.P.
No.12737/2022 (SC-ST), has preferred this intra-Court appeal
assailing the order dated 28.06.2023 [ impugned order ] passed by
the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.12737/2022 (SC-
ST), whereby the writ petition preferred by respondent No.3 herein
was allowed, and the order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the
Assistant Commissioner as well as the order dated 27.04.2022
passed by the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of
Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [ PTCL Act ], directing
resumption and restoration of the land bearing Survey No.104/P7

- 3 -
WA No. 878 of 2026


measuring 4 acres 30 guntas, situated at Kondamari Village,
Nelavanki Hobli, Srinivaspura Taluk [ subject land ], were set aside.
Prefatory facts
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal may be noted in
some detail.
3. The case of the appellant is that the subject land was
originally granted in favour of her mother-in-law, Lakshmamma
under Grant No.80/63-64 dated 24.08.1964. According to the
appellant, the grant was made for a nominal upset price fixed by
the Government under the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888 [ the
Rules ] and the Rules governing such grants, and a grant certificate
in Form No.I dated 24.08.1964 was issued by the Competent
Authority.
4. The appellant specifically disputes the case of respondent
No.3 herein that Lakshmamma had acquired the subject land by
way of purchase in a public auction. According to the appellant, the
subject land was granted by the Government under the applicable
grant rules on payment of the prescribed upset price and subject to
the conditions governing such grant.

- 4 -
WA No. 878 of 2026


5. Lakshmamma is stated to have executed a registered Will
dated 30.09.1997 in favour of the appellant, who is her daughter-in-
law. Upon the death of Lakshmamma, the appellant claims to have
succeeded to the subject land under the said Will. Thereafter, the
appellant alienated the subject land in favour of respondent No.3
under a registered sale deed dated 27.12.2007. Subsequently,
proceedings were initiated by the appellant under the PTCL Act,
seeking resumption and restoration of the subject land on the
premise that the said alienation was in contravention of the
provisions of the PTCL Act.
6. By order dated 09.08.2018, the Assistant Commissioner
allowed the proceedings and ordered resumption and restoration of
the subject land, holding that the alienation thereof was in
contravention of Section 4 (2) of the PTCL Act.
7. Respondent No.3 carried the matter in appeal before the
Deputy Commissioner. By order dated 27.04.2022, the Deputy
Commissioner dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order
passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
8. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings passed by the
authorities, respondent No.3 preferred the aforesaid writ petition.
The learned Single Judge proceeded on the premise that

- 5 -
WA No. 878 of 2026


Lakshmamma had purchased the subject land in a public auction
`
upon payment of 357/- and that Form No.I had thereafter been
issued in her favour.
9. Placing principal reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble
1
Supreme Court in B. K. Muniraju Vs. State of Karnataka , the
learned Single Judge held that merely because the document was
titled as a ‘grant certificate’, the land would not assume the
character of ‘granted land’ for the purpose of the PTCL Act.
Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and orders of the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner were set
aside.
Submissions
10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
contend that the learned Single Judge has proceeded on the
erroneous premise that the subject land had been purchased by
Lakshmamma in a public auction merely because the grant
certificate records payment of an amount into the Government
Treasury. According to him, the subject land was granted within
the meaning of ‘granted land’ under Section 3 (1) (b) of the PTCL
Act, and the subsequent alienation attracted the consequences

1
(2008) 4 SCC 451

- 6 -
WA No. 878 of 2026


contemplated under Section 4 of the PTCL Act. It is submitted that
the burden was upon respondent No.3, who asserted that the
transaction was an outright purchase, to establish that the
consideration paid by the original grantee represented the actual
market value of the land.
11. Placing reliance upon Rule 43-G(4) of the Mysore Land
Revenue (Amendment) Rules 1960, the learned counsel submits
that the nature of the consideration paid assumes significance,
since the prohibition contemplated thereunder concerns land
granted either free of cost or at a price less than the market value.
Therefore, it is contended that the material question was whether
the original grant in favour of Lakshmamma was a concessional
grant, thereby attracting a prohibition against alienation, and
whether the law governing the grant imposed such a condition.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant also relies upon the
Statement of Objects and Reasons of the PTCL Act to contend that
the legislation was intended to protect lands granted to members of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from alienation made
in violation of the restrictions contained in Land Grant Rules.
13. Further, strong reliance is placed on the grant certificate in
Form No.I dated 24.08.1964. It is submitted that the grant

- 7 -
WA No. 878 of 2026


certificate demonstrates that the subject land was granted to
Lakshmamma and the authorities were justified in invoking the
provisions of PTCL Act.
14. The learned counsel would contend that the subject land is
not a ‘granted land’ within the meaning of Section 3 (1) (b) of the
PTCL Act. According to him, Lakshmamma had purchased the
subject land upon payment of the stipulated price, and the mere
fact that the document issued by the Revenue is styled as a ‘grant
certificate’ cannot determine the true character of the transaction.
15. Strong reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme
Court in B.K. Muniraju ( supra ) to contend that the nomenclature of
a document is of little consequence and that its true nature must be
gathered from its recitals read as a whole and, to the extent
permissible, from the surrounding circumstances. It is contended
that in B.K. Muniraju ( supra ), notwithstanding the document being
styled as a ‘certificate of grant’, the Supreme Court, having regard
to its contents and the fact that the land had been purchased in a
public auction on payment of the stipulated price, held that the
transaction was a purchase and not a grant attracting the
provisions of the PTCL Act.

- 8 -
WA No. 878 of 2026


16. Therefore, the principal question that arises for consideration
is:
“Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in
concluding that the subject land was purchased by the
original grantee in a public auction and, consequently, was
not ‘granted land’ within the meaning of Section 3 (1) (b) of
the PTCL Act, in the absence of a specific determination by
the competent authorities, upon examination of the relevant
records and applicable Land Grant Rules, as to the true
nature of the original transaction?”

17. Having regard to the submissions, the controversy, in
essence, turns essentially upon the character and nature of the
original transaction under which Lakshmamma acquired the subject
land. The grant certificate dated 24.08.1964 is in Form No.I
(Appendix E) under the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888 and the
Rules framed thereunder. The format of which is set down below:

“ APPENDIX E

[See Rule 56]

1. Certificate of Grant

Whereas, under the rules for the disposal of unoccupied
Government land for cultivation and the grant of occupancy rights,
the land specified in the Schedule hereunder written has been
sold, and A.B. has purchased it in public auction or for upset price
and the sale has been duly confirmed, and A.B. declared the
purchaser thereof, and whereas the said A.B. has paid into the
Government Treasury the full sum of the purchase-money
amounting to Rs……………

Amildar Taluk
___________________ __________
Now, I, C.D., Assistant Commissioner of Sub-Division do permit
____________________ __________
Deputy Commissioner District

- 9 -
WA No. 878 of 2026


The said A.B. to enter into occupation of the said land and
hereby grant and confirm subject to cancellation or modification in
appeal or revision under the provisions of the Land Revenue
Code, the said land to the said A.B., his heirs, personal
representatives and assigns under the terms of the Survey
Guarantee Rule and subject to the provisions hereinafter
mentioned and subject also to the regular payment of the land
revenue assessment on the land as fixed under the rules in force
for the time being until the same is revised in accordance with the
law for the time being in force:

(1) Provided that this assessment shall be paid for each
revenue year as per rules prescribed in this behalf from time to
time under the provisions of the Land Revenue Code, failing which
it will be recoverable by coercive process in the manner prescribed
by the Land Revenue Code and Rules thereunder.

(2) Provided also that this title-deed in no way affects the
liability of the abovesaid land to such rates, taxes and cesses
other than land revenue as are or as may be imposed by law,
whether for general, municipal or other local purposes.

(3) Provided also that the said A.B. or other lawful owner of
the said land shall at all times hereafter at his own expense
maintain, in good order, the restored major and minor tanks of the
village with respect to which the customary obligation to maintain
is imposed on the said A.B. by virtue of his being the occupant or
other lawful owner of the said survey number and shall put up,
repair and maintain in good order the boundary marks around and
in the said land, failing which it shall be lawful for His Highness the
Maharaja's Government after due notice to cause the maintenance
work of the said tank in so far as his liability in this behalf extends
and the repair of the said boundary marks to be carried out, and to
recover the cost of such maintenance work and such repair as a
revenue demand from the said A.B. or other lawful owner.

(4) Provided also that nothing in the title-deed contained
shall affect the existing or customary rights of Government or of
proprietors of lands adjoining or lying near the said land or of the
villagers in common in all existing roads and paths and in streams
of water running through or bounding the said land.

(5) Provided also that this title-deed shall in no way be
considered to grant to or in any way vest in the said A.B., his heirs,
personal representatives or assigns any right, title or interest in or
to precious stones, gold and other minerals or coal or stone or
rock containing or supposed to contain precious stones, gold or

- 10 -
WA No. 878 of 2026


other minerals or coal known to exist or which may at any time
hereafter be discovered on or under the said land or any part
thereof all of which are hereby respectively reserved to the
Government of His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore subject to
the conditions now in force or which may be prescribed in this
behalf from time to time, subject to the conditions that the said
A.B., his heirs, personal representatives or assigns shall always
be allowed to use free of charge any limestone, granite and
ordinary minerals other than metals or coal or precious stones
which may be found on or under the said land and which may be
applied to the bona fide private use of the said A.B., his heirs,
personal representatives or assigns and not removed for purposes
of sale.

(6) Provided also that this title-deed shall not be considered
in any way to grant to or vest in the said A.B., his heirs, personal
representatives or assigns the right to sandal trees which are
hereby reserved to the Government of His Highness the Maharaja
of Mysore, except in so far as the rules that are or may be framed
in the matter of the grant of bonuses for such trees may permit.

(7) Provided also that the grant shall be subject further
generally to the provisions of the Land Revenue Code and the
rules thereunder or any other law for the time being in force.

Specification of the Land

District Taluk Village Name,
Boundaries Survey
If any
Extent Assessment
No.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
A. G.
Total
*Phut
Kharab
Dry
Wet
Garden
Rs.

*The purpose for which Phut Kharab is allowed to be specifically
mentioned here.

Dated this…………..day of………….19..

Amildar. ”

18. In the same format, Form No.I was issued to Lakshmamma.
The contents of the document are in Kannada, and a translated

- 11 -
WA No. 878 of 2026


copy thereof has been produced. However, as the translation does
not correspond with the original document, we have extracted the
format of ‘certificate of grant’, which is similar to the Form No.I
issued to Lakshmamma.
19. Significantly, the prescribed recital contained therein refers to
the land having been purchased ‘in a public auction or for an upset
price’. The expression employed in the prescribed form thus
contemplates alternate modes of disposal. The mere presence of
the words ‘purchased’, ‘purchaser’, or ‘purchase money’, therefore,
cannot, by themselves, conclusively establish that an actual public
auction had taken place.
20. Equally, the mere nomenclature ‘grant certificate’ cannot, by
itself, establish that the land is a ‘granted land’ for the purposes of
the PTCL Act.
21. The Supreme Court, in B.K. Muniraju ( supra ), enunciated
that the substance of the transaction and not merely the title of the
document, must govern. Paragraph No.18 of said judgment reads
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

- 12 -
WA No. 878 of 2026


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 [(1999) 3 SCC 573] , Subbegowda v.
Thimmegowda [(2004) 9 SCC 734] and Bishwanath Prasad
Singh v. Rajendra Prasad [(2006) 4 SCC 432] . ”

22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the document must be
read as a whole, and the intention and the nature of the transaction
must be gathered from its recital and the relevant surrounding
material. Paragraph No.17 of the judgment in B.K. Muniraju
( supra ), also assumes importance. The Supreme Court dealt with
the question as to how the authority should determine whether the
land is a ‘granted land’ or ‘land purchased for a price at a public
auction’. The said paragraph reads as under:
“ 17. From the materials, now we have to see whether
the land purchased by Motappa was a “granted land” as
claimed by the appellant herein and one M. Gopal or
purchased by public auction for a price as claimed by
contesting Respondents 4 and 5 herein? In order to
understand whether the land in question was a “granted land”
or “land purchased for a price at a public auction”, it is
incumbent on the part of the authorities to look into the
relevant records and decide the same. In view of the
controversy in question, we verified the document and the
orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner and the factual findings recorded by them. It
reveals that the land in question was granted in 1948 and the
certificate of grant/Saguvali chit which was filed as Annexure

- 13 -
WA No. 878 of 2026


R-1 before the High Court (Annexure P-3 before us) shows
that the same was sold in public auction for a price. In other
words, the land was purchased by Motappa at a public auction
and it was not a “granted land” within the meaning of Rule
43(8) of the Rules. It was contended that the finding recorded
by both the authorities is essentially a factual finding based on
the relevant materials and the same cannot be interfered with
by the writ court. ”
( emphasis ours )

23. That principle, as enunciated in B.K. Muniraju ( supra ), in our
considered view, requires an enquiry into whether Lakshmamma
acquired the subject land pursuant to an actual public auction upon
payment of the price determined therein, or whether the subject
land was allotted/granted to her on payment of an upset or
concessional price under the applicable Land Grant Rules.
24. It is in this context that the decision in Pedda Reddy Vs.
2
State of Karnataka , rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, also assumes significance. The Division Bench held that,
before an alienation could be declared void under the PTCL Act,
the Competent Authority was required to record the necessary
findings concerning the status of the original grantee, the nature
and terms of the grant, and whether the alienation was in violation
of the prohibition prescribed under the applicable Rules. The
relevant observation, at paragraph No.6, reads as under:

2
1993 SCC Online Kar 3

- 14 -
WA No. 878 of 2026


“ 6. The legal position is that the Assistant
Commissioner cannot declare the sale of the land granted
under the provisions of the Rules as void unless he records
the following findings:

i) that the grant was made in favour of a person belonging
to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe;
ii) that the grant was either on upset price or a free grant or
for a price less than upset price; and
iii) that the alienation had taken place within the period of
prohibition prescribed under the Rules. ”

25. The principles stated above , as laid down in B.K. Muniraju
and Pedda Reddy , have also been considered in greater detail in
Sri. G.M. Venkatareddy and another Vs. The Deputy
3
Commissioner, Kolar District and others rendered by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court . While considering the scheme of the
PTCL Act in the light of the Land Grant Rules, the Court
emphasized the necessity of examining the nature of the original
grant, the price at which the land was granted and the restrictions
imposed under the applicable Rules and concurred with the
decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in Pedda Reddy ( supra ). The
relevant observations contained in paragraph Nos.15 and 16 are
culled out below:
“ BURDEN OF PROOF

15. The next question to be considered is on whom
the burden of proof has to be laid under the PTCL Act. As in
the case of the appellant's claim for protection of their
possession by application of doctrine of adverse possession,

3
2012 SCC Online Kar 7533

- 15 -
WA No. 878 of 2026


the other common feature which runs through the rubric of
these appeals is that the grantee or his legal representatives
have failed to prove that the sale transaction entered into by
them with the appellants/purchasers or their predecessor in
title is invalid. In other words, the appellants' endeavour is to
place the burden of proof on the seller/grantee, despite the
provisions of Section 5(3) of the PTCL Act, and in this regard
Learned Counsel for almost all the appellants have relied on
Peddareddy v. State of Karnataka [1993 (1) Kar. L.J. 328
(DB)].

16. We respectfully concur with the decision of the
Co-rdinate Bench in Peddareddy , wherein our learned
brothers had distilled three points which the Assistant
Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner must address and
answer before any sale transaction pertaining to Grant Lands
can be held by them to be void. In their view, the Authorities
must determine that the Grant was (i) made in favour of a
person belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe; (ii)
was for upset price or for a price less than the upset price or
without consideration and (iii) came to be alienated within the
period of prohibition prescribed under the Rules or the
Saguvali Chit. In that case since conclusions had not been
recorded on each of these three points, the matter was
remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh
adjudication. The Division Bench had not been called upon to
and therefore did not reflect on the conundrum of which party
to the lis should prove these three points. Therefore, without
diluting in any manner the ratio of Peddareddy , we think it
necessary to add that by virtue of Section 5(3) of the PTCL
Act, the onus probandi or burden of proof is statutorily placed
on the shoulders of the purchaser. This is also appreciation of
the law by the Division Bench in M. Bhoomi Reddy v. The
Special Deputy Commissioner [ILR 2003 Kar 2087], wherein it
has been held thus:

“14. A legal fiction is enacted in sub-Section
(3) of Section 5 to state that if a person is found to be
in possession of the granted land, then, said person
should be regarded as a person who has acquired the
granted land by transfer. Of course, the fiction enacted
in sub-Section (3) could be rebutted by a person
against whom the fiction is applied by adducing
evidence to show that he has not acquired the granted
land despite the fact that he is in possession. In the
instant case, admittedly, the Appellant was found to be
in possession of the schedule land which is a granted
land within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act on

- 16 -
WA No. 878 of 2026


the relevant date. By force of the fixation enacted in
sub-Section (3) of Section 5 of the Act, it should be
held that the Appellant has acquired the schedule land
by transfer until the contrary is proved. The burden to
prove the contrary is understandably placed on the
Appellant. The Appellant has neither pleaded nor
produced any proof to discharge that burden. Having
regard to the definition of the word “transfer” and also
the fiction enacted in sub-Section (3) of Section 5 of
the Act, it could not be said that the Assistant
Commissioner in directing resumption and restoration
rd
of the schedule land in favour of the 3 respondent
acted without jurisdiction or without authority of law.” ”

26. The present matter, when examined on the touchstone of the
aforesaid principles, reveals a material deficiency in the orders
passed by the statutory authority. The Assistant Commissioner
has proceeded on the premise that the subject land, measuring 4
acres 30 guntas, was granted to Lakshmamma under Grant
No.80/63-64 dated 24.08.1964, that she belonged to a protected
class, and that the grant was subject to a restriction against
alienation. On that basis, the subsequent transaction was declared
void under Section 4 of the PTCL Act. The relevant extract from the
translated copy is set out below:

“ It is found that land measuring 4 Acres 30 Guntas in Survey
No. 104 of Kondamari Village was granted under proceedings
No. N.Dis. DAR 80/63-64, and a Saguvali Chit dated 24-08-
1964 was issued to the grantee, Lakshmamma w/o
Chinnappa. As per the rules in force at that time, the granted
land could not be alienated for a period of 15 years.

The grantee, Smt. Lakshmamma w/o Chinnappa,
executed a registered Will dated 30-09-1997 (Document
No.69/97-98) in favour of her daughter-in-law, Smt.

- 17 -
WA No. 878 of 2026


Venkatalakshmamma w/o Lakshminarayana Swamy. Based
on the said Will, mutation entry MR No. 200-8/97-98 was
effected in the applicant's name. The applicant belongs to a
Scheduled Caste. Subsequently, the applicant, Smt.
Venkatalakshmamma, sold the said land to the respondent
through a registered sale deed dated 05-01-2008 (Document
No. 1629/2007-08) for valuable consideration. The applicant
did not obtain prior Government permission for the said sale.
Therefore, the said sale transaction attracts Section 4(2) of the
PTCL Act, 1978.

ORDER

It is hereby ordered as follows The land situated in Survey No.
104/P7 measuring 4 Acres 30 Guntas in Kondamari Village,
Nelavanki Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk, was originally granted
under Darkhast to Smt. Lakshmamma w/o Chennappa, who
belongs to a Scheduled Caste. The said land subsequently
devolved upon the applicant through a Will, and the khata was
mutated in her name. The applicant thereafter sold the said
land to the purchaser under Registered Sale Deed No.
1629/2007-08 dated 05-01-2008. As the said sale transaction
violates Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands)
Act, 1978, the sale transaction is declared null and void and is
hereby set aside. The purchaser is ordered to be evicted from
the said land, and the land is restored to the applicant. The
Tahsildar, Srinivasapura Taluk, is directed to take necessary
further action in this regard.

This order was dictated to the judgment writer, corrected,
signed, and pronounced in open court on 09-08-2018. ”

27. The Deputy Commissioner in the appeal filed by respondent
No.3 substantially affirmed the said conclusion and held as under:
“The appeal filed by the appellants is hereby
dismissed. A copy of this order is to be provided to the
concerned officials, duly acknowledged, and the same was
announced in open court of 27/04/2022. ”

28. What is absent, however, is a specific finding on the
foundational issue identified in Pedda Reddy and in G.M.

- 18 -
WA No. 878 of 2026


Venkatareddy ; What was the precise nature of the original
transaction in favour of Lakshmamma? There is neither a
determination as to whether the subject land was granted free of
cost, at a concessional price, at a price less than the upset/market
price, or upon payment of the full price nor is there a finding, on the
material available on record as to whether an actual public auction
was conducted.
29. The learned Singh Judge, on the other hand, proceeded on
the premise that Lakshmamma had purchased the subject land in a
public auction by paying Rs.357/- to the Government Treasury and,
applying B.K. Muniraju’s decision, concluded that the subject land
was not a ‘granted land’. This conclusion, however, also presents a
difficulty. The grant certificate produced before the Court does not
unequivocally state that Lakshmamma acquired the subject land
pursuant to an actual public auction. The prescribed Form No.I
employs the expression “public auction” or “for an upset price”. In
the absence of any material establishing that an auction was
actually conducted, the printed recital cannot, by itself, be treated
as a proof that Lakshmamma was a successful bidder in a public
auction.

- 19 -
WA No. 878 of 2026



30. It is also material to note that, as the record presently stands
apart from the grant certificate in Form No.I, no other
contemporaneous documents concerning the original transaction
has been placed on record. The character of transaction must,
therefore, be determined from the available documents, read with
the Land Grant Rules applicable as on 24.08.1964.
31. As regards the delay of 955 days, the appellant's explanation
is that she had no knowledge of the writ proceedings and that the
vakalath had been filed on her behalf without her authority; she
stated that she came to know of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge only through the papers received in O.S.
No.383/2025, whereupon she took steps to obtain the records and
institute the appeal.
32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Inder Singh Vs.
4
State of Madhya Pradesh , has observed that if in a particular
case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled
merely on the basis of the limitation.
33. Given that the present appeal raises a foundational question
regarding the nature of the original grant and the matter is being

4

2025 SCC Online SC 600

- 20 -
WA No. 878 of 2026


remitted for re-determination on the basis of the original records,
we are of the considered view that the application for condonation
of delay deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, in the circumstances
stated above and to enable adjudication of the matter on merits,
the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned.
34. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view
that the matter requires reconsideration by the Assistant
Commissioner. The order of the learned Single Judge as well as
the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant
Commissioner are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Assistant
Commissioner for fresh consideration.
35. The Assistant Commissioner shall examine the original grant
records and the grant certificate in Form No.I, identify the rules
governing the grant as on 24.08.1964, and thereafter, record a
specific finding as to whether the subject land was ‘granted land’
within the meaning of Section 3(1) (b) of the PTCL Act or whether
the same was purchased by Lakshmamma in an actual public
auction. If it is found to be a ‘granted land’ the authority shall
thereafter determine the nature and conditions of the grant,
including the price at which the subject land was granted and the

- 21 -
WA No. 878 of 2026


prohibition, if any, governing its alienation, and decide the
consequences of the subsequent transfer in accordance with law.
36. The Assistant Commissioner shall also bear in mind the
decision in Pedda Reddy, G.M. Venkatareddy and B.K. Muniraju
stated supra . It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion as to whether the subject land is ‘granted land’ or was
purchased ‘outright in a public auction’.
37. The appeal is accordingly, allowed in part.
38. The pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed
of.


Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE



Sd/-
(K.S. HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE


MBM