SMT Y DEVIKA RANI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61220
WP No. 901 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010013952025







IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

WRIT PETITION NO. 901 OF 2025 (SC/ST)


BETWEEN:

SMT Y DEVIKA RANI
W/O SRI Y D V KISHORE,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/OF FLAT NO.30,
MADHAVAPURI CLASSIC ENCALVE,
SAINIKPURI, SECUNDERABAD,
TELANGALA-500094

REPRESENTED BY HER PA HOLDER,
SRI BOPPANA RAVINDRANATH TAGORE,
S/O SRI SEETHARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
R/AT 8-3-721/1/6,
PENT HOUSE, ANUSHA APARTMENTS,
YELLAREDDY GUDDA, HYDERABAD,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MURALIDHARA P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.











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

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61220
WP No. 901 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010013952025




2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT,
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISRICT-562101

4. THE TAHSILDAR
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101.

5. SRI NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE SALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT MANNARAPURA VILLAGE,
NANDI HOBLI,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101.

6. SMT. NARAYANAMMA
D/O LATE SALLAPPA,
W/O SRI MUNINARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT EATHAMAKALAHALLI VILLAGE,
MANCHANABELE POST,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101.

7. SRI R SREENIVASA
S/O RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR VIDYA SAGARA,
RAMAIAH GARDEN,
THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560077.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61220
WP No. 901 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010013952025



8. DR KAVITHA REDDY
W/O RAVINDRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO.8-2-120/112/A/13,
PLOT NO.100,
BANJARA HILLS ROAD NO.2,
HYDERABAD,
ANDHRA PRADESH-500034.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. B.R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE
FOR R5 AND R6;
R7 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 02.11.2026,
NOTICE TO R8 IS DISPENSED WITH)

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.Muralidhara.P., counsel for the petitioner;
Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 to 4, and Sri.B.R.Ramachandra Reddy.,
counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 appeared in person.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61220
WP No. 901 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010013952025



In PTCL writ petitions, the orders passed by the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are
ordinarily challenged before this Court. The Court has
frequently observed discrepancies in the names of the
original grantees, the dates of grant and alienation, and
the survey numbers mentioned in the impugned orders.
Accordingly, for the sake of convenience and to avoid
unnecessary repetition, the parties are referred to as the
“original grantee”, and the relevant years of grant and
alienation are used instead of reproducing the names,
dates, and survey numbers in each case.
2. The petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari
to quash the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner
and the Deputy Commissioner. These orders are
challenged in this writ petition on several grounds as set
out in the memorandum of the writ petition.
3. Counsel for the respective parties advanced
several contentions.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61220
WP No. 901 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010013952025



AGA submits that an appropriate orders may be
passed.
Counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 vehemently
contended that there was a violation of the provisions of
the PTCL Act and justified the action taken by the family of
the grantee in seeking resumption proceedings. Urging
additional grounds, he submits that the petition lacks
merit and the same may be dismissed.
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
5. This issue is limited to the resumption
proceedings. The land in question was granted in 1968–
69, and the first alienation took place in 2005. A perusal of
the sale deeds reveals that the legal heirs of the original
grantees sold the property to Sri.Sreenivasa on
01.04.2005. Thereafter, Sri.Sreenivasa, along with the
family of the grantee, sold the property to Sri.S.Bupathi
Reddy and Smt.Kavitha Reddy on 04.02.2008.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61220
WP No. 901 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010013952025



Subsequently, Sri.Bupathi Reddy and Smt.Kavitha Reddy
sold the property in favor of the petitioner on 24.09.2009.
In 2006, the resumption proceedings were initiated
before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant
Commissioner approved the petition and ordered the land
to be resumed. Dissatisfied, an appeal was preferred to
the Deputy Commissioner, who upheld the original order.
Undoubtedly, the PTCL Act was enacted to protect
members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from
exploitation by prohibiting alienation of granted lands
without prior permission. The remedy of resumption is
available to protect the grantee against unauthorized
transfers. However, when the grantee or his heirs
voluntarily execute a registered sale deed, they cannot
later invoke the Act to nullify their own transaction. Thus,
the right to challenge it is limited. The Act’s protective
umbrella is intended to shield the grantee from
exploitation by others, not to allow the grantee to

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61220
WP No. 901 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010013952025



repudiate his own act. Courts therefore apply estoppel
against the grantee.
Furthermore, the family members of the grantee
themselves have sold the property and have also initiated
the resumption proceedings. In view of the law laid down
Seethamma
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case, they
could not have instituted proceedings under the provisions
of the PTCL Act.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
is of the considered view that the orders passed by the
Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Deputy
Commissioner, directing resumption of the subject land,
cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, the impugned
orders are liable to be set aside.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are
liable to be set aside.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61220
WP No. 901 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010013952025



7. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order
dated 17.07.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner
vide Annexure-G, and the order dated 28.06.2024 passed
by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-H are
quashed. As this Court has quashed the orders, the
authority concerned is hereby directed to mutate/restore
the petitioner's name in the subject land in the revenue
records.
allowed
8. Resultantly, the writ petition is .
On disposal of the Writ Petition, any interim order
stands discharged, and any pending interlocutory
applications, if any, are disposed of.

SD/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE

AM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43