SRI. T. NARAYANA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.BHARATH KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.300 OF 2021 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI. T. NARAYANA
S/O LATE THAMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT KARIYAMMANA AGREHARA VILLAGE
BELLANDUR POST
VARTHUR HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK 560 103
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. THARANATH SHETTY, ADV.)
Digitally
signed by
PAVITHRA
N
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE 01
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
BANGALORE - 01
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE BUILIDNGS
K G ROAD, BANGALORE 560 009
2
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION
ND
2 FLOOR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE
BUILDING, K G ROAD
BANGALORE 560 009
4. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O LATE YELLAPPA @ CHINNAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.
4(A). SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
4(B). SMT. SUNITHA
D/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
4(C). SRI SRINIVASA
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
4(D). SRI MANIKANTA
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO.383
ND
2 CROSS, RAJU STREET
YAMALURU, BENGALURU 560 037
4(E). SRI MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE RANIYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
4(F). SRI MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE PAPAMMA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
3
4(G). SMT. VENKATAMMA
D/O LATE PAPAMMA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
4(H). SMT. GANGAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
4(I). SMT. AMMANNI @ VENKATAMMA
D/O LATE GANGAMMA AND MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
4(J). SRI VENKATAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
4(K). SMT. VENKATAMMA
D/O LATE YELLAPPA @ CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
4(L). SMT. MUNIYAMMA @ GUNDAMMA
D/O LATE YELLAPPA @ CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
4(M). SRI CHINNASWAMY
S/O LATE YELLAPPA @ CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT YAMALURU VILLAGE
YAMALURU POST
VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU 560 037
5. SRI V R RADHA KRISHNA
S/O V RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.487
TH TH
37 CROSS, 9 MAIN
4
TH
JAYANAGARA 4 BLOCK
BANGALORE 560 011
6. M/S. M.S.RAMAIAH DEVELOPERS
AND BUILDERS PVT. LTD.
HAVING IT'S OFFICE AT NO.4
ST
1 FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING, J.C.ROAD
BANGALORE 02
REP. BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI M.R.SEETHARAM
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ADITHYA SONDHI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. B. PRASAD, ADV. FOR R4 (M);
SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1-R3;
MS. APARNA N., ADV. FOR
SMT. G.K.BHAVANA, ADV. FOR R5 & R6;
SRI. B.R.VISHWANATH, ADV. FOR R4 (I);
SMT. L.MANJULA, ADV. FOR R4(A TO D);
R4 (E) TO (H) - SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2021 PASSED IN WP NO.24484/2021
(SC AND ST) AND TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND
CONSEQUENTLY, TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 5.7.2012
PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-K AS
WELL AS THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2011 PASSED IN
K.SC.ST.19/10-11 PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT HEREIN
VIDE ANNEXURE-J TO THE WRIT PETITION.
5
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 17.10.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.BHARATH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This writ appeal is filed challenging an Order dated
28.01.2021 in W.P.No.24484/2012 passed by the learned
Single Judge.
2. We have heard Shri. Tharanath Poojary leanred
counsel for the appellant, Shri, Aditya Sondhi, learned senior
counsel as instructed by Shri. B. Prasad, learned Advocate
for respondent No.4(M), Shri. Spoorthy Hegde learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondents No.1 and 3, Shri.
Aparna N learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 6 and
Shri. B. R Vishwanath learned counsel for respondent No.4
(L) and Smt. L. Manjula learned counsel for respondent No.4
(A to D).
6
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that land bearing measuring 30 guntas situated in
Sy.No.14 at Kadubisanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk was granted in favour of respondent
No.4, who belongs to the Bovi community, which is classified
as a Scheduled Caste, at a reduced upset price by the
Amildar, Bangalore South Taluk in proceedings No.6-GD-
20/1953-54 dated 13.08.1953. A Saguvali Chit was issued in
her favour, which contained a condition prohibiting
alienation of the land for a period of fifteen years.
4. Respondent No.4 sold an extent of 15 guntas out
of the granted land in favour of the appellant under a
registered Sale Deed dated 13.12.1996, and the name of
the appellant was mutated in the revenue records in
M.R.No.2/1997-98. The sale was effected after the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (‘PTCL
Act’ for short) came into force on 01.01.1979. Thereafter,
respondent No.4 executed another registered sale deed
dated 22.06.2005 in respect of the remaining extent of land
7
in favour of Smt. Radhamma and her sons, Shri N.
Ravikumar and Shri N. Basavaraj.
5. On a complaint made by an organisation called
the 'Dalit Okkoota Samithi' alleging that certain persons had
grabbed land in Sy.No.14 of Kadubisanahalli Village, the
Tahasildar, Bangalore East Taluk, by his report dated
23.04.2003, requested the Special Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore District to initiate proceedings under Section
136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The
Special Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 28.06.2004,
held that respondent No.4 was in unauthorised occupation of
the land and directed that the entries made in the revenue
records in her name be cancelled and that the land be
entered in the name of the Government. The entry in favour
of the appellant in respect of the 15 guntas purchased by
him also came to be deleted.
6. Respondent No.4 and the appellant jointly
challenged the said order in W.P.No.4541/2005. This Court
by order dated 29.03.2005, noticed that the proceedings
had been conducted against one Smt. Muniyamma, wife of
8
Shri. Narayanappa, and not against respondent No.4 (Smt.
Muniyamma w/o Shri. Yellappa), and without notice to
respondent No.4 or the appellant. The order dated
28.06.2004 was accordingly quashed, and the matter was
remitted to the Special Deputy Commissioner for fresh
consideration. On remand, the Special Deputy
Commissioner, by order dated 07.06.2006, remitted the
matter to the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-
Division to conduct a thorough enquiry and to verify whether
there were any grant records relating to the land, and the
matter was registered as RRT No.22/2006-07.
7. While the said proceedings were pending,
respondent No.4 filed a petition under Section 5 of the PTCL
Act on 27.12.2007, seeking restoration of the land. The
Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 05.05.2009, found
that the grant in favour of respondent No.4 and the entries
made in the revenue records in her name had been called in
question and that the matter was pending adjudication in
the proceedings under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act. The proceedings were therefore dropped, with
9
liberty to respondent No.4 to file a fresh petition after the
conclusion of those proceedings. Thereafter, by order dated
28.04.2010, the Assistant Commissioner held that the grant
made in favour of respondent No.4 was genuine and
directed that the entries in the revenue records be restored
in her name.
8. Respondent No.4, thereafter, filed a fresh petition
dated 15.07.2011 as evidenced by Annexure - J, under
Section 5 of the PTCL Act against the appellant and others,
seeking a declaration that the sale deeds dated 13.12.1996
and 22.06.2005 were null and void and for restoration of the
land in her favour. The appellant contested the proceedings.
The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 15.07.2011,
held that both the alienations had taken place after the PTCL
Act came into force and without the previous permission of
the Government as required under Section 4(2) of the PTCL
Act. Both the sale deeds were therefore declared null and
void, and it was ordered under Section 5(1)(a) and (b) of
the PTCL Act that the land measuring 30 guntas is be
10
resumed to the Government and restored in favour of
respondent No.4.
9. The appellant preferred an appeal under Section
5A of the PTCL Act before the Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore. During its pendency, the appellant filed an
application seeking to implead respondents No.5 and 6,
contending that the land purchased by him had been
subsequently sold to respondent No.6 through respondent
No.5, his General Power of Attorney holder. The Deputy
Commissioner, by order dated 05.07.2012, held that the
grant in favour of respondent No.4 stood confirmed by the
order passed in RRT No.22/2006-07, to which the appellant
was also a party, and that the appellant, having been a co-
petitioner with respondent No.4 in W.P.No.4541/2005, could
not plead otherwise. It was held that the alienation, having
been made after the commencement of the PTCL Act without
the previous permission of the Government, was null and
void, and that in view of Section 4(3) of the PTCL Act, the
pendency of civil proceedings was no bar. The appeal was
accordingly dismissed.
11
10. Aggrieved, the appellant filed W.P. No.24484 of
2012 challenging the order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the
Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-Division in
No.K.SC.ST.19/2010-11 and the order dated 05.07.2012
passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District in
Appeal No.SC.ST(A)83/2011-12.The learned Single Judge,
noticing that the land was a granted land and that it was an
admitted fact that no prior permission had been obtained,
considered the sole contention that the application of
respondent No.4 was liable to be dismissed on the ground of
delay and laches. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court
in Satyan v. Deputy Commissioner and Others , and
taking note of the fact that respondent No.4 had been
pursuing the proceedings under Section 136 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the learned Single Judge held
that the delay could not be held to be such that the
application was required to be dismissed, and dismissed the
writ petition by order dated 28.01.2021.
11. This writ appeal was earlier allowed by a Division
Bench of this Court by judgment dated 12.04.2022, holding
12
that the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, filed in
the year 2007, nearly eleven years after the sale, was
beyond a reasonable period, and the orders of the Assistant
Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner were quashed.
Respondent No.4 sought review of the said judgment in R.P.
No.526 of 2022. By order dated 09.01.2023, the Division
Bench found that the grant in favour of respondent No.4 had
been cancelled on 28.06.2004, which was challenged in a
writ petition, and that the grant was restored in her favour
only on 28.04.2010, and that this aspect of the matter had
not been dealt with while passing the judgment. The
judgment dated 12.04.2022 was accordingly recalled and
the writ appeal was restored to file. The writ appeal was
thereafter admitted on 01.02.2023.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant contends
that respondent No.4 voluntarily executed the sale deed in
favour of the appellant on 13.12.1996 for valuable
consideration, and approached the Assistant Commissioner
under Section 5 of the PTCL Act only on 27.12.2007, after a
delay of eleven years. It is contended that the said delay is
13
unexplained and vitiates the entire proceedings. It is also
contended that the pendency of the proceedings under
Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act did not
prevent respondent No.4 from approaching the authority
under the PTCL Act. It is contended that where no period of
limitation is prescribed, the power under Section 5 of the
PTCL Act, must be invoked within a reasonable time, beyond
which no relief can be granted.
13. It is further contended that the Assistant
Commissioner, having closed the proceedings initiated by
respondent No.4 on account of the pendency of the
proceedings under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act could not have entertained the same claim
again and ordered restoration. It is also contended that
several other alienations have taken place in respect of the
land, and that the application preferred belatedly by
respondent No.4 for restoration, without seeking restoration
as against the other alienees, is unsustainable. It is
therefore prayed that the writ appeal be allowed and the
orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
14
Commissioner be set aside. Reliance is placed on the
judgment of Sri. Venkataswamy and Ors. v. The Special
Deputy Commissioner and Ors , order dated 28.03.2025
passed in W.A.22/2023.
14. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondent No.4(m) contends that the learned Single Judge
rightly held that the delay in filing the application under
Section 5 of the PTCL Act could not invalidate the order of
restoration. It is submitted that this writ appeal was earlier
allowed on the premise that the delay was of eleven years,
but that the said judgment was recalled in
R.P..No.526/2022, since the Division Bench found that the
grant in favour of respondent No.4 had been cancelled on
28.06.2004 and was restored only on 28.04.2010, and that
this aspect had not been considered. It is contended that
during this period, respondent No.4 was diligently
prosecuting the proceedings under Section 136 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act and that her first application
under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, filed in the year 2007, was
closed only because the grant itself was then under
15
adjudication. It is therefore contended that the actual delay
is only less than eight years.
15. It is further contended that the sale having been
made after the commencement of the PTCL Act without the
previous permission of the Government is void, and that the
appellant who had himself supported the case of respondent
No.4 regarding the grant, cannot now question it. Relying on
the decisions of the Apex Court in Satyan ’s case (supra),
and of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Kavita v.
Deputy Commissioner and Others passed in
W.A.No.100893/2015 Order dated 02.07.2020 , it is
contended that a delay of such duration in approaching the
authority under a beneficial legislation cannot be pleaded as
a ground to invalidate an order validly passed.
16. The learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance
on the following decisions:-
•
Smt. Muniyamma v. Sri. T. Naraya and Ors, vide
order dated 09.01.2023 passed in RP 526/2022;
•
Satyan v. Deputy Commissioner and Ors, reported
in AIR 2019 SC 2797;
16
•
Sri. K.Rajendran v. The Deputy Commissioner
and Ors., vide order dated 28.03.2018 passed in
WP 12242/2018;
•
Smt. Kavita v. The Deputy Commissioner and
Ors., vide order dated 02.07.2020 passed in WA
100893/2015; and
•
Sri Nagaraju v. Deputy Commissioner and Ors .,
vide order dated 16.03.2021 passed in WA
82/2020 .
17. We have considered the contentions advanced.
We notice that the initial grant of land was in favour of Smt.
Muniyamma w/o Shri. Yellappa - respondent No.4 herein.
She had executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant on
13.12.1996. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated by the
Special Deputy Commissioner against the respondent No.4
under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. By
an order dated 28.06.2004, the entries made in the revenue
records in her name were cancelled, and entries were
directed to be made in the name of the Government. The
said decision was challenged by the respondent No.4 and
the appellant in W.P.No.4541/2005, which was allowed on
29.03.2005, remitting the matter for a fresh consideration.
17
Thereafter, an order was passed in the year 2010 restoring
the grant.
18. In the meanwhile, respondent No.4 had filed an
application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act on 27.12.2007.
By Annexure - 'F' Order dated 05.05.2009, the Assistant
Commissioner had found that the grant of land in favour of
respondent No.4 and the entries made in the revenue
records in her name have been cancelled and the matter is
pending adjudication. In the circumstances, the proceedings
were dropped with liberty to respondent No.4 to file fresh
petition after the proceedings under Section 136(3) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act were concluded.
19. After the grant was restored in 2010, a fresh
petition dated 15.07.2011 as evidenced by Annexure-J
seeking restoration of the land sold to the appellant herein.
The application was allowed and the appeal preferred by the
appellant was rejected, which led to the filing of the writ
petition.
18
20. In the writ petition, the learned Single Judge
found that the decisions of the Apex Court in Nekkanti
Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another,
reported in ILR 2018 KAR 352 (SC) , and Vivek M.
Hinduja and Others v. M. Ashwatha and Others
reported in 2018 (1) Kar.L.R. 176 (SC) , have been
rendered where the matter involved huge delay of 20 to 30
years and that the delay of around 8 years could not be said
to be such as to invalidate an order of restoration under
Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The writ petition was accordingly
dismissed.
21. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
are of the opinion that the fact that the grant was annulled
in 2004 and restored only in 2010, is a factor which has to
be taken into account while considering the delay in the
instant matter. The sale by respondent No.4 in favour of the
appellant herein, was admittedly one executed on
13.12.1996. It is an admitted case that there was no prior
permission obtained before the property was sold by the
respondent No.4. It is also not in dispute that the land in
19
question is granted land. Therefore the only question to be
considered would be whether respondent No.4 had
approached the authority under the PTCL Act after an
unexplained delay which would invalidate the order of the
Assistant Commissioner.
22. The facts in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi's case
(supra) was that there was an inordinate, unexplained delay
of nearly three decades in making the application for
restoration. The said matter is pending in review before the
Apex Court. However, the learned Single Judge has clearly
considered the factual aspects in this matter, that in view of
the proceedings with regard to the genuineness of grant
which were pending before the appropriate authorities a
delay in filing an application under Section 5 by respondent
No.4 cannot be said to be inordinate. The Apex Court in
Satyan 's case (supra) has held as follows:-
"
33. x x x x x
Suffice it to say that a delay of eight (8) years by itself
cannot come in the way of the competent authority
taking the action, as limitation principles would not
apply, as observed in Amrendra Pratap Singh v. Tej
Bahadur Prajapati [(2004) 10 SCC 65] . The cases
20
referred to by the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant involved huge gaps of around twenty (20) to
thirty (30) years, which is not so in the present case.
34. The period of eight (8) years cannot be said to be
such, as to amount to such delay and laches as would
make the action void, considering that it is in respect of
a beneficial legislation for the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes community."
The same view is followed by this Court in Kavita 's case
(supra) as well.
24. In the facts and circumstances of the instant
case, and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in
Satyan 's case (supra) and this Court in Kavita 's case
(supra), we are of the opinion that the contention raised by
the appellant that the delay of 8 years in approaching the
authority under Section 5 of the PTCL Act is an inordinate
delay which should invalidate the order passed by the
Assistant Commissioner cannot be accepted. The further
contention raised with regard to the nature of the grant are
not available to the appellant who had joined respondent
No.4 in her challenge against the order of the Deputy
Commissioner. The contention that the application had once
21
been closed and could not be reopened is also devoid of
merits, since the application was closed with specific liberty
to approach afresh after the validity of the grant is decided.
In the circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal.
The appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
All pending Interlocutory Applications shall stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K.S.BHARATH KUMAR)
JUDGE
cp*