STATE OF KARNATAKA vs SRI H R SURESH
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R
TH
DATED THIS THE DAY OF 05 JUNE, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 218 OF 2025 (SC-ST)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 223 OF 2025 (SC-ST)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 225 OF 2025 (SC-ST)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1343 OF 2025 (SC-ST)
IN W.A. No. 218/2025
BETWEEN:
1. MR. H.R. SURESH
S/O LATE H.K. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
RESIDING AT "AYKA"
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHRESTA)
NO. 1, JAKKUR MAIN ROAD
JAKKUR POST
BENGALURU - 560 064
…APPELLANT
PRATIBHA
M PATIL
Digitally signed by
PRATIBHA M PATIL
Date: 2026.06.06
10:51:00 +0530
(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
MULTISTORIED BUILDING
- 2 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 009
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH DIVISION
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 009
4.
TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK
TALUK OFFICE
YELAHANKA
BANGALURU - 560 064
5. MR. A.J. JAMES
S/O A.C. JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
6. MRS. ANCY JAMES
W/O A.J. JAMES
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT:
TH
NO. 576, 4 CROSS
HMT LAYOUT, R.T. NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 032
7.
SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
W/O LATE B.M. GOVINDRARAJU
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
- 3 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
8. SRI. BHASKAR
S/O LATE B.M. GOVINDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
9. SRI SHASHIDHAR (A.K.A.B.G.KUMAR
S/O LATE B.M. GOVINDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
10. SMT. GOWRAMMA
D/O LATE KORAMARA VENKATAMMA
W/O D.N. LAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
ND
RESIDING AT: NO. 127, 2 FLOOR
KEMPANNA BUILDING
NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST
YELAHANKA
BENGALURU - 560 064
11.
KUM. ASHWINI
D/O LATE NARAYANAMMA &
HANUMANTHAPPA AND
GRANDDAUGHTER OF
SMT. BYLAMMA & LATE RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
12. KUM. MANJI
D/O LATE NARAYANAMMA
AND HANUMANTHAPPA
GRANDDAUGHTER OF
SMT. BYLAMMA AND
LATE RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
13. SMT. NANJAMMA
D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY & BYLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
- 4 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
14.
SMT. MEENA
D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY & BYLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
15. SMT. SARITA
D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY & BYLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
NOS. 11 TO 15 ARE RESIDING AT:
KAKOLU VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
16. SRI B.M. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O SRI B.H. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
17. SMT. M.N. KUSUMA
D/O SRI B.M. NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
18. SRI B.N. MOHAN KUMAR
S/O SRI B.M. NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
NOS. 16 TO 18 ARE RESIDING AT:
BETTAHALASURU VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R-1 TO 4,
SRI A.J. JAMES, R-5 - PARTY-IN-PERSON,
SMT. ANCY JAMES, R-6 - PARTY-IN-PERSON,
MS. FEBA NISHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-7 TO 9,
SRI S.T. JUNJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-10 TO 15 &
SRI ESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R-16 TO 18)
- 5 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE COMMON
ORDER DATED 24.01.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. No.13192/2023
CONSEQUENTLY, SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY
ND
THE 2 RESPONDENT BY ORDER DATED 22.05.2023 IN PTCL
53/2022, PTCL 54/2022 AND PTCL 61/2022 AND FURTHER SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. NO. 13192/2023
AND ETC.
IN W.A. NO. 223/2025
BETWEEN:
1. MR. H.R. SURESH
S/O LATE H.K. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
RESIDING AT "AYKA"
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHRESTA)
NO. 1, JAKKUR MAIN ROAD
JAKKUR POST
BERIGALURU - 560 064
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
MULTISTORIED BUILDING
- 6 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 009
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH DIVISION
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BENGALURU -560 009
4. TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK
TALUK OFFICE, YELAHANKA
BANGALURU - 560 064
5.
MR. A.J. JAMES
S/O A.C. JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
6. MRS. ANCY JAMES
W/O A.J. JAMES
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT:
TH
NO. 576, 4 CROSS, HMT LAYOUT
R.T. NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 032
7. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
W/O LATE B.M. GOVINDRARAJU
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
8.
SRI. BHASKAR
- 7 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
S/O LATE B.M. GOVINDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
9.
SRI SHASHIDHAR (A.K.A.B.G KUMAR)
S/O LATE B.M. GOVINDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
10. SRI B.M. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O SRI B.H. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
11. SMT. M.N. KUSUMA
D/O SRI B.M. NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
12. SRI B.N. MOHAN KUMAR
S/O. SRI B.M. NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
NOS. 7 TO 12 ARE RESIDING AT:
BETTAHALASURU VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI
YELAHANKA NORTH ( ADDL.) TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
13. SMT. GOWRAMMA
D/O LATE KORAMARA VENKATAMMA
W/O D.N. LAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
ND
RESIDING AT: NO.127, 2 FLOOR
KEMPANNA BUILDING
NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064
14. KUM. ASHWINI
D/O LATE NARAYANAMMA &
- 8 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
HANUMANTHAPPA AND GRANDDAUGHTER OF
SMT. BYLAMMA & LATE RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
15. KUM. MANJI
D/O LATE NARAYANAMMA &
HANUMANTHAPPA AND GRANDDAUGHTER OF
SMT. BYLAMMA & LATE RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
16. SMT. NANJAMMA
D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY & BYLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
17. SMT. MEENA
D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY & BYLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
18. SMT. SARITA
D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY AND BYLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
NOS.14 TO 18 RESIDING AT:
KAKOLU VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO 4,
SRI A.J. JAMES, R-5 - PARTY-IN-PERSON,
SMT. ANCY JAMES, R-6 - PARTY-IN-PERSON,
MS. FEBA NISHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-7 TO 9,
SRI ESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R-10 TO 12 &
SRI S.T. JUNJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-13 TO 18)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED
24.01.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE
- 9 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
HON'BLE COURT IN W.P No. 13200/2023, CONSEQUENTLY SET
ND
ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE 2
RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 22.05.2023 IN PTCL
53/2022, PTCL 54/2022 AND PTCL 61/2022 AND FURTHER SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2025 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.
No. 13200/2023 AND ETC.
IN W.A. NO. 225/2025
BETWEEN:
1. MR. H.R. SURESH
S/O LATE H.K. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
RESIDING AT "AYKA"
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHRESTA)
NO.1, JAKKUR MAIN ROAD
JAKKUR POST
BENGALURU - 560 064
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
MULTISTORIED BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 009
- 10 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
3.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH DIVISION
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 009
4. TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK
TALUK OFFICE, YELAHANKA
BANGALURU - 560 064
5. MR. A.J. JAMES
S/O A.C. JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
6. MRS. ANCY JAMES
W/O. A. J. JAMES,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT:
TH
NO. 576, 4 CROSS
HMT LAYOUT, R.T. NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 032
7. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
W/O LATE B.M. GOVINDRARAJU
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
8.
SRI BHASKAR
S/O LATE B.M. GOVINDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
9. SRI SHASHIDHAR (A.K.A.B.G. KUMAR)
S/O LATE B.M. GOVINDRARAJU
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
10. SRI B.M. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O. SRI B.H. MUNIYAPPA
- 11 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
11. SMT. M. N. KUSUMA
D/O. SRI B.M. NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
12. SRI B.N. MOHAN KUMAR
S/O. SRI B.M. NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
NOS.7 TO 12 ARE RESIDING AT:
BETTAHALASURU VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI
YELAHANKA NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
13. SMT. GOWRAMMA
D/O. LATE KORAMARA VENKATAMMA
W/O D.N. LAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 127, 2ND FLOOR
KEMPANNA BUILDING
NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064
14. KUM. ASHWINI
D/O LATE NARAYANAMMA &
HANUMANTHAPPA
GRANDDAUGHTER OF SMT. BYLAMMA &
LATE RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
15.
KUM. MANJI
D/O LATE NARAYANAMMA AND
HANUMANTHAPPA
GRANDDAUGHTER OF SMT. BYLAMMA &
LATE RAMAMURTHY
- 12 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
16. SMT. NANJAMMA
D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY & BYLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
17. SMT. MEENA
D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY & BYLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
18. SMT. SARITA
D/O LATE RAMAMURTHY & BYLAMMAAGED
ABOUT 44 YEARS
NOS. 14 TO 18 ARE RESIDING AT:
KAKOLU VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 089
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO 4,
SRI A.J. JAMES, R-5 - PARTY-IN-PERSON,
SMT. ANCY JAMES, R-6 - PARTY-IN-PERSON,
MS. FEBA NISHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-7 TO 9,
SRI ESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R-10 TO 12 &
SRI S.T. JUNJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-13 TO 18)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
ABOVE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED
24/01/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. NO.13239/2023, CONSEQUENTLY,
ND
SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE 2
RESPONDENT BY ORDER DATED 22.05.2023 IN PTCL 53/2022,
PTCL 54/2022 AND PTCL 61/2022, FURTHER SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 27.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. NO. 13239/2023 AND
ETC.
- 13 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
IN WA No.1343/2025
BETWEEN:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
MULTISTORIED BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI H.R. SURESH
S/O LATE H.K. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RESIDING AT 'SHRESTA'
No.1, JAKKUR MAIN ROAD
JAKKUR POST
BENGALURU - 560 064
2. MR. A.J. JAMES
S/O A.C. JOSEPH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.576
TH
4 CROSS, HMT LAYOUT
R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032
3. MRS. ANCY JAMES
W/O A.J. JAMES
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.576
TH
4 CROSS, HMT LAYOUT
R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
- 14 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
V/O DATED 03.03.2026
MR. A.J. JAMES, RESPONDENT No.2 - PARTY-IN-PERSON;
SMT. ANCY JAMES, RESPONDENT No.3 - PARTY-IN-PERSON)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
ON W.P. Nos.13200/2023 C/w W.P. No.13192/2023 AND W.P.
No.13239/2023 (SC-ST) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
24.01.2025 SO FAR IT RELATES TO IMPOSITION OF COST OF RS.10
LAKHS ON THE APPELLANTS & ETC.
THESE WRIT APPEALS 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 MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.POONACHA)
1. The appeals (WA.No.218/2025, WA.No.223/2025 and
WA No.225/2025) are filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioner. Writ
Petition No.1343/2025 is filed by the State. In all the appeals the
common order dated 24.01.2025 passed in WP.No.13192/2023,
WP.No.13200/2023 and WP No.13239/2023 are impugned.
- 15 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
BACKGROUND FACTS .
2. Sri Anjanappa and Smt. Koramara Venkatamma were
permitted to cultivate an extent of 2 acres each in Survey No. 259
from the year 1951-1952 under the Grow More Food Scheme
[ GMF scheme ]. The said GMF scheme was commenced vide a
Government Order [ GO ] dated 11.04.1992 issued by the then
General and Revenue Department of the Government of Mysore in
the background of shortage in the production of food and fodder
whereunder, in order to incentivise an increase in production, it was
decided to put unoccupied irrigatable lands, which had not been
put into cultivation and the Deputy Commissioner was permitted to
lease the said lands for a period not exceeding three years with
concession and payment of assessment and thereafter give an
option to the said persons for purchasing the land at a reasonable
upset price at the end of the lease. Subsequently by GO dated
13.06.1942, it was ordered that the upset price would not exceed
the value of the land at the time when it was given for cultivation
and if possible, the upset price would be intimated in advance
when permission was granted to cultivate the lands. Subsequently,
by GO dated 30.06.1964 it was decided to grant the land for five
- 16 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
years on lease whereunder, the first two years would be free of
assessment, the third and fourth years would be half assessment
and the fifth year would be full assessment.
3. An extent of 2 acres of land granted to Smt. Koramara
Venkatamma was vide order No.LND.SR(3)-310/60-61 dated
21.05.1961. The said extent of 2 acres in Survey No. 259 was at
Sl.No.22 and hence, was numbered as Survey No.259/22. The
Grant conferred in favour of Anjanappa was vide No.LND.SR (2)-
225/60-61 dated 21.01.1966, of an extent of 2 acres in Survey
No.259 which was at Sl.No.18 and hence, numbered as Survey
No.259/18.
4. It is pertinent to note that the confirmation of grant in
favour of Smt. Koramara Venkatamma was in the year 1961 and
the confirmation in favour of Anjanappa was in the year 1966 (i.e.,
five years thereafter). It is also pertinent to note that Survey
No.259, which was Gomal land, was of a total extent of 225 acres
16 guntas, out of which an extent of 125 acres was granted to
various persons under the GMF scheme. The said grants to
various persons were ranging from 6 acres to 2 acres. The sketch
- 17 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
filed by the Tahsildar before the learned Single Judge also
indicates that the grant made in favour of Smt. Koramara
Venkatamma was at the northern portion of Survey No.259 and the
grant made in favour of Anjanappa was in the southern portion of
Survey No.259.
5. On 05.04.1967, Smt. Koramara Venkatamma (described
as a daughter of Sri. Koramara Krishnappa), sold the said 2 acres
of land that was granted in her favour to Sri. B.G.Muniyappa by a
₹
registered Sale Deed for a sale consideration of 400/-. The
revenue records were mutated in favour of Sri. B.G.Muniyappa vide
MR.No.6/67-68 and the RTCs also reflected his name till 1995-
1996 in respect of Survey No.259/22. Vide MR.No.52/95-96, the
revenue entries standing in the name of Sri. B.G.Muniyappa were
mutated in the names of his sons i.e., Sri. B.M.Govindaraju and
Sri.B.M.Narayanaswamy, on the basis of an oral partition. On
16.09.2006, Sri. B.M.Narayanaswamy and his children executed a
Sale Deed in favour of Sri. A.J.James and his wife Smt. Ancy
James in respect of 1 acre in Survey No.259/22 (northern portion)
₹
for a total sale consideration of 22.05 lakhs. The revenue entries
were also mutated in favour of the said Sri. A.J.James and Ancy
- 18 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
James vide MR No.213/2006-07. The southern portion of one acre
was retained by Sri. B.M.Govindaraju, the other son of
Sri.B.G.Muniyappa.
6. Sri A.J.James sought durast and phodi of the land
purchased by him and it was noticed that the original records
pertaining to grant in favour of Smt. Koramara Venkatamma were
unavailable and hence proceedings were initiated under Section
67(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [ KLR Act ], which
culminated in order dated 31.07.2008, under which the Assistant
Commissioner ordered durast and phodi of the land purchased by
Sri.A.G.James and his wife, consequent to which, the said land
was assigned Survey No.376 and the revenue entries were also
mutated in his favour vide MR No.92/2008-09.
7. On 21.09.2008, the Tahsildar submitted a report to the
Special Deputy Commissioner that the names of
Sri.B.M.Govindaraju, Sri. B.M.Narayanaswamy, Sri. A.J.James and
Smt.Ancy James have been entered in the RTC without any legal
basis and requested for proceedings under Section 136(3) of the
KLR Act to be initiated. On 12.06.2009, Sri. A.J.James and his wife
- 19 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
sought permission of the Deputy Commissioner to use the
agricultural land purchased by them for non agricultural purposes
i.e., non-residential use (educational purposes) by order dated
06.01.2011. The Deputy Commissioner, after conducting an
enquiry, came to the conclusion that the entries made in favour of
Sri.A.J.James and his wife under MR No.213/2006-07 were
improper and directed cancellation of the same and taking over
possession of the land. The said order dated 06.01.2011 of the
Deputy Commissioner was challenged by Sri. A.J.James and his
wife before this Court (WP.No.No.46071/2011 and WP
No.1697/2011). This Court vide order dated 02.09.2014 set
aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner. It was observed
that the records relating to the grant of Survey No.259/22 were
available, which had been obtained by Sri. A.J.James under the
Right to Information Act, 2005 [ RTI Act ] and directed the Deputy
Commissioner to consider the original records and pass orders
afresh. The Deputy Commissioner, instead of considering the
matter afresh, directed the Tahsildar to hold an enquiry, which
was called in question in WP No.43826-27/2015. This Court vide
order dated 23.11.2015, quashed the said order of the Deputy
Commissioner and directed him to conduct an inquiry in
- 20 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
terms of the order passed in W.P. No.46071/2011. The
Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 30.01.2016 dropped the
proceedings under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act. It was held that
the records indicated that the land has been granted to
Smt. Koramara Venkatamma. It was also directed the Tahsildar to
continue the entries in respect of Survey No.376 (old Survey
No.259/22) in favour of Sri. A.J.James and Ancy James. It was also
held that the land granted to Smt. Koramara Venkatamma under
the GMF scheme had been confirmed on payment of upset price;
that there was no prohibition for alienation of land granted under
the GMF scheme; that the alienation made by Smt.Koramara
Venkatamma to Sri. B.G.Muniyappa was valid; and that
Sri. A.J.James and Smt.Ancy James had purchased the said land
under registered Sale Deed dated 16.09.2006 from the sons of
Sri. B.G.Muniyappa.
8. In the meanwhile, on 25.08.2011 Smt. Gowramma and
Smt. Bylamma, claiming to be the daughter and widowed daughter-
in-law of Sri. Anjanappa respectively, made an application to the
Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of
- 21 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [ PTCL Act ] to declare that the Sale Deed
dated 05.04.1967 executed by Smt. Koramara Venkatamma in
favour of Sri. B.G.Muniyappa as null and void and sought for
resumption of the said land. In the said application for resumption,
it was claimed that land that was granted to Anjanappa and
confirmed in his favour on 20.01.1966 had been sold by his wife
Smt. Koramara Venkatamma after his death. Hence, it was
contented that Smt. Koramara Venkatamma was the wife of
Sri. Anjanappa and that the land granted to Anjanappa was sold by
Smt. Koramara Venkatamma.
9. It is noticed by the learned Single Judge that in the said
proceedings for resumption, the widow and children of
Sri. B.M.Govindaraju, Sri.B.M.Narayanaswamy and his children, as
also Sri. A.J.James and his wife Smt.Ancy James were arrayed as
respondents. However, they did not appear in the said proceedings
despite notices being served. The Assistant Commissioner, by
order of 02.09.2014 accepted the claim of Smt. Gowramma and
Smt. Bylamma, declared the Sale Deed dated 05.04.1967
executed by Smt. Koramara Venkatamma, as also the Sale Deed
dated 16.09.2006 executed by Sri. B.M.Narayanaswamy and his
- 22 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
children as null and void and ordered for restoration of the land in
favour of Smt. Gowramma. Pursuant to the said order dated
02.09.2014, the revenue records were changed on 07.11.2014 vide
MR.No.29/2014-15. The said order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner was challenged by Sri. A.J.James and his wife in
the year 2016 by preferring an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner
inter alia
contending, , that they did not have notice of the
resumption proceedings.
10. In the meanwhile, on 02.03.2015, Smt. Gowramma and
Smt. Bylamma made an application seeking for permission to
alienate the land that had been ordered to be resumed in their
favour. It was noticed by the learned Single Judge that pursuant to
the order dated 02.09.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner
whereunder, resumption of the land was ordered, Smt. Gowramma
and Smt. Bylamma did not make any application for handing over
possession of the land, nor were steps taken by the authorities to
actually resume the land. It has been noticed that Sri. A.J.James
and Smt. Ancy James continued in possession of the lands
purchased by them vide the registered Sale Deed dated
16.09.2006.
- 23 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
11. Pursuant to the request made by Smt. Gowramma and
Smt. Bylamma for permission to sell the land, which was ordered to
be resumed in their favour, the Deputy Commissioner in his
recommendation dated 05.09.2015 had noted Smt. Gowramma
and Smt. Bylamma were in possession of the land (although in the
applications filed in the year 2011, Smt. Gowramma and
Smt. Bylamma had themselves stated that the land was required to
be restored in their favour). The State Government vide order
dated 23.09.2015, accepted the recommendation dated 05.09.2015
of the Deputy Commissioner and accorded permission to
Smt. Gowramma and Smt. Bylamma to sell the land. The Deputy
Commissioner by Official Memorandum (OM) dated 23.09.2015
intimated the factum of permission having been accorded under
Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act by the Government. On the basis of
the said permission, Smt. Gowramma and Smt. Bylamma
proceeded to execute a Sale Deed dated 14.10.2015 in favour of
Sri. H.R.Suresh.
12. The purchaser, Sri. H.R.Suresh, was impleaded in the
appeal filed by Sri. A.J.James and Ancy James before the Deputy
Commissioner in the year 2016. The Deputy Commissioner, vide
- 24 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
order dated 04.05.2018 allowed the appeal and remanded the
matter to the Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration. In the
meanwhile, the purchaser Sri. H.R.Suresh filed a suit in OS
No.2576/2018 against the children of Sri. B.G.Muniyappa,
Sri. A.J.James and his wife, Sri. B.M.Narayanaswamy and his
family members and the Trial Court granted an order of temporary
injunction in his favour in respect of land bearing Survey No.376
(old Survey No.259). In the remand proceedings also,
Sri. H.R.Suresh was impleaded as respondent No.9. The Assistant
Commissioner, in the remand proceedings, vide order dated
21.02.2019 held that the land granted to Anjanappa had been
transferred in contravention of the terms of the grant and the land
was required to be resumed.
13. In the meanwhile, the order dated 04.05.2018 passed by
the Deputy Commissioner remanding the matter to the Assistant
Commissioner was challenged by Sri. A.J.James and his wife Ancy
James along with the wife and children of Sri. B.M.Govindaraju
before this Court in W.P.No.8401-02/2019. This Court, vide order
dated 13.12.2019 held that since, during the pendency of the writ
petition, the Assistant Commissioner had disposed of the
- 25 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
application, the writ petition would not survive for consideration and
the writ petitioners have to avail the remedy of appeal before the
Deputy Commissioner.
14. The said order was affirmed in WA No.267/2020.
Subsequently, Sri. A.J.James and his wife Ancy James, as well as
the wife and children of Sri. B.M.Govindaraju, preferred an appeal
before the Deputy Commissioner, in which the purchaser
Sri. H.R.Suresh was arrayed as respondent No.5. The Deputy
Commissioner vide order dated 22.05.2023, allowed the appeal
and set aside the order of resumption. It was held that the
proceedings for resumption had been initiated 44 years after the
grant and could not be entertained. It was further held that the
lands having been granted under the GMF scheme, the said land
could not be considered as granted land as contemplated under
the PTCL Act.
15. The said order dated 22.05.2023 passed by the Deputy
Commissioner is impugned in the writ petitions [W.P.
No.13200/2023, W.P. No.13192/2023 and W.P. No.13239/2023] by
H.R. Suresh.
- 26 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
16. In the meanwhile, Sri A.J.James and the son of
Sri. B.M.Govindraju viz., Sri G.B.Bhaskar has lodged various
complaints to the Government complaining of illegalities in the
grant of permission to Smt. Gowramma and Smt. Bylamma to sell
the land. The Government directed the Regional Commissioner to
examine the complaint and submit his considered opinion. The
Regional Commissioner called for a report from the Deputy
Commissioner. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner submitted a
report dated 06.07.2023 to the Regional Commissioner, wherein he
has stated that there is been lapses in the grant of permission
under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, inasmuch as the proceedings
that had been initiated under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act were
dropped after noticing that there was a grant made in favour of
Smt. Koramara Venkatamma, which had not been taken note of
before considering the application for grant of permission. It has
also been noticed that due to illegalities committed by the officials,
severe prejudice had been caused to Sri. A.J.James and
Sri. G.B.Bhaskar. The Regional Commissioner by his report dated
13.11.2023 sent to the Government, accepted the report of Deputy
Commissioner dated 06.07.2023 and stated that the purchase
made by Sri. A.J.James had been upheld by the Deputy
- 27 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
Commissioner in proceedings initiated under Section 136(3) of the
KLR Act and therefore, the order of the Assistant Commissioner in
resuming the lands in proceedings under Section 4(2) of the PTCL
Act was incorrect.
17. Sri. H.R. Suresh had been served with the notice dated
10.04.2023 for conducting of survey which was challenged in W.P.
No.10634/2023. A learned Single Judge of this Court entertained
the said writ petition directed parties to maintain status-quo, which
writ petition is stated to be pending. In the said writ petition
Sri. A.J.James made an application on 19.04.2024 seeking
restitution. In the said application, apart from restitution, damages
₹
of a sum of 67.49 lakhs was claimed as damages caused to his
Farmhouse. It was contended that Farmhouse was destroyed by
Sri. H.R.Suresh and he tried to enter into the property on the basis
of the Sale Deed and hence, Sri A.J.James is required to be
restituted.
FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER:
18. Learned Single Judge while considering the writ petitions
framed the following points for consideration:
- 28 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
58. In light of the above, the points that would arise for
consideration in these writ petitions are:
i. Whether the application fo resumption filed by
Gowramma andBylamma could have been entertained in
respect of the land which had been granted to Koramara
Venakatamma?
ii. Whether the Government could have accorded
permission to Gowramma and Bylamma to sell the
land to H.R.Suresh without even noticing that the
land had actually not been resumed and had been
restored to them?
iii. Whether the provisions of the PTCL Act could be
invoked in respect of the land which was admittedly a
land granted under the GMF Scheme?
iv. Whether the claim of A.J. James and his wife for
reimbursement of damages and for restitution can be
granted?
19. While considering point No.1 i.e., as to whether the
application for resumption filed by Smt. Gowramma and
Smt. Bylamma could be entertained in respect of the land which
has been granted to Smt. Koramara Venkatamma, the learned
Single Judge had noticed the affidavit dated 16.12.2024 of the
Tahsildar, wherein a sketch was produced indicating the locations
of the land granted to 27 persons along with the serial numbers.
The learned Judge at para No.69 of the impugned order had
extracted the relevant portion of the sketch. It has been noticed by
the learned Single Judge that land at Sl.No.22 is situated at the
- 29 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
North portion of the survey number, while land at Sl.No.18 is
situated in the southern portion of the said survey number. It was
thus concluded by the learned Single Judge that both the said
lands i.e., at Sl.Nos.22 and 18 were far away from each other and
not even abutting lands.
20. The learned Single Judge while considering the matter in
detail has appreciated the various material placed on record held,
inter alia
, as under:
a. That Smt. Gowramma and Smt. Bylamma were interested
only in land granted to Sri. Anjanappa which was at Sl.No.18
in Sy.No.234 and had no rights whatsoever to claim the land
granted to Smt. Koramara Venkatamma which was at
Sl.No.22 of Sy.No.259;
b. Smt. Gowramma and Smt. Bylamma made a patently
false claim in their applications for resumption that land
bearing Sy.No.259/22 (new Sy.No.376) measuring two acres
had been granted to Sri. Anjanappa on 20.01.1966;
c. That no document was produced by Smt. Gowramma
and Smt. Bylamma in support of their assertion that
- 30 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
Smt. Koramara Venkatamma was the wife of
Sri. Anjanappa who had succeeded his property after his
death;
d. Smt. Gowramma and Smt. Bylamma who was stated to
be the legal heirs of Sri. Anjanappa could seek resumption
only of land at Sl.No.18 in Sy.No.259 and not land at
Sl.No.22 in Sy.No.259.
21. With regard to Point Nos.(ii), (iii) and (iv) framed for
consideration that was with regard to the applicability of the PTCL
Act to the land in question, the learned Single Judge had noticed
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Guntaiah &
1
others Vs. Hambamma and others ; judgment of the Full Bench
2
of this Court in the case of Hambamma Vs. State of Karnataka
as well as in the case of Chikka Kullegowda Vs. State of
3
Karnataka .
1
(2005) 6 SCC 228
2
1998 SCC OnLine Kar 162
3
1997 SCC OnLine Kar 178
- 31 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
DISCUSSION AND REASONING:
22. It is pertinent to note that the primary contentions raised
by the appellants/writ petitioners are with regard to the applicability
of the PTCL Act, even to lands granted under the GMF Scheme.
The factual finding of the learned Single Judge with regard to
application for resumption made by Smt. Gowramma and
Smt. Bylamma under the provisions of the PTCL Act being in
respect of lands granted to Sri. Anjanappa [Survey No.259/18];
whereas, the lands in which, the private respondents claimed right,
title and interest, are the lands that were granted to Smt. Koramara
Venkatamma, i.e., Survey No.259/22 [a portion of which, i.e., 01
acre purchased by Sri. A.J.James and his wife Smt. Ancy James
has been assigned new Survey No.376] have not been seriously
disputed. In any event, the appellants have miserably failed in
demonstrating that the said factual findings as recorded by the
Deputy Commissioner and the learned Single Judge are in any
manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with by this Court in
the present appeals.
- 32 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
23. Further, the learned Single Judge has also noticed
various alleged irregularities made by the concerned revenue
inter alia
officials, , taking forcible possession of the land from
Sri. A.J.James and his wife Smt. Ancy James, despite no
proceedings having been initiated by Smt. Gowramma and
Smt. Bylamma, consequent to the order of resumption dated
02.09.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. In any event a
detailed reconsideration of the alleged irregularities as noticed by
the learned Single Judge is not required to be made while
adjudicating upon the present appeals having regard to the findings
recorded by the Deputy Commissioner and the learned Single
Judge that the predecessor in title of the appellants/writ petitioners
was Smt. Gowramma and Smt. Bylamma, whose application for
resumption pertained to the land granted to Sri. Anjanappa, i.e.,
Sy.No.259/18. It is also been noticed that although in the
application for resumption made by Smt. Gowramma and
Smt. Bylamma, it was contended that Smt. Koramara Venkatamma
was the wife of Sri. Anjanappa, who succeeded to the property
granted to Anjanappa after his death, and that she had alienated
the property of Anjanappa, after his death, no documents have
been produced either before the Deputy Commissioner or the
- 33 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
Assistant Commissioner, in support of the contention that
Smt. Koramara Venkatamma was the wife of Sri. Anjanappa.
1
Guntaiah
24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
was considering a challenge made to the judgment of the Full
2
Hambamma
Bench of this Court in the case of . The two questions
that were framed by the Full Bench of this Court by virtue of the
reference made to it by a Division Bench of this Court is as under:
6. The above reference raises two questions:
(i) Whether the authority granting the land under Rule
43-J of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules
1960 can impose a condition at the time of making a
grant stating that grantee cannot alienate the same?
(ii) Whether an authority including the Tahsildar can
impose a condition while issuing the Saguvali Chit
stating that the grantee cannot alienate the land for a
period of 15 years, when the grant does not contain such
condition and what is the effect of the condition imposed
in the Saguvali Chit?
24.1 . While considering the said questions, the Full Bench also
noticed the earlier Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of
3
Chikka Kullegowda and held as under:
11. The Full Bench held that the conditions stipulated in
Rule 43-G is inapplicable to grants under Rule 43-J and
they entirely agreed with the view taken in Siddamma''s
case, supra. But, however, the Full Bench kept open the
- 34 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
questions as to the validity of grant of land under Rule
43-J imposing a condition by the Tahsildar that the
grantee shall not alienate the land for a period of
15 years.
12. Therefore, the point for consideration is, whether,
after the grant order is made, whether an authority can
impose a condition prohibiting alienation, and if so, what
is its effect?
13. We entirely agree with the view taken by the Full
Bench that the conditions stipulated under Rule 43-G
are not applicable for grants made under Rule 43-J and
there are no grounds for us to differ from the view taken
by the Full Bench in this regard.
14. Once the conditions stipulated in Rule 43-G cannot
be applied to the grants under Rule 43-J as there is no
power or authority to impose any condition stating that
the land granted under Rule 43-J cannot be alienated
for a period of 15 years or any other period. It is a
settled principle of law that the delegate cannot exceed
his power and he has only to act within the power
conferred on him. Therefore, the condition imposed
by the Tahsildar in the Saguvali Chit, at the time of
issuing the same, that the grantee shall not alienate the
land for a period of fifteen years, when such condition
was not imposed by the order or the authority making
the grant, cannot be sustained.
15. The second question for consideration is what is the
effect of the condition imposed by the Tahsildar at the
time of issuing the Saguvali Chit. The granting
Authority, as well as the Tahsildar, derive their power
from Rule 43-J. When there is no power to impose
any condition in the Saguvali Chit under Rule 43-J, at
the time of grant, the subordinate authority, i.e., the
Tahsildar has exceeded his limit in imposing the
condition. The Tahsildar being the delegate, has no
power to impose any condition in the Saguvali Chit.
Even if such condition is imposed, the same is not valid
in the eye of law and it is without power and jurisdiction.
Therefore, the condition imposed by the Tahsildar in the
- 35 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
Saguvali Chit stating that the grantee cannot alienate
the land for a period of 15 years or any other period is
not valid. In the absence of any such condition, it is
open to the grantees to enjoy the land as they like,
including the right to alienate the land.
16. No other provisions are brought to our notice,
authorising to impose a condition of prohibition of
alienation. Therefore, in the absence of such a power,
the authority including Tahsildar cannot impose
any condition; so the condition imposed is not valid in
the eye of law.
17. The learned Counsel for the original grantees
contended that the grant is not under Rule 43-J, but it is
under Rule 43-G. We have perused the orders of the
original authority cancelling the grant and upholding the
same by the Appellate Authority. Both the orders show
that the grantees were in possession on
temporary lease when they were granted the land
by virtue of Rule 43-J; whereas for the grantees under
Rule 43-C the unoccupied lands are given. Therefore,
the grants involved in these cases are under Rule 43-J
and therefore, we are not able to accept the contention
of the original grantees.
18. It is also contended that the State has collected the
upset price from the grantees. Therefore, the grant has
to be presumed under Rule 43-C and Rule 43-D and
other sub-clauses. Government has taken a
policy decision to grant the lands to temporary holders
on a concessional price. After Rule 43-J is framed, such
lands are granted to various persons and concessional
price is collected. Merely because some price is
collected, it cannot be said that the collection of upset
price is not correct. The impugned grant is under Rule
43-G, when it was actually made under Rule 43-J. Even
on this aspect, we do not see any force in the
contention raised by the learned Counsel for the original
grantees.
Therefore, the reference is answered accordingly.
- 36 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
1
25. The Supreme Court in the case of Guntaiah was
considering a fact situation wherein the land was granted to
members of Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes, which were
initially given on temporary lease and later permanently by virtue of
Rule 43-J of the KLR Rules. The said lands were given to the said
persons permanently with a restriction that the grantees shall not
alienate the lands to third parties for a period of 15 years. The said
lands were granted during the period 1959-65. Subsequently, the
PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The Supreme Court
noticed the findings of the Full Bench of this Court as under:
8. The finding of the Full Bench of the Karnataka High
Court is that if the grant is made under Rule 43-J, there
could not have been any condition restricting the
alienation and if at all there were any such conditions
they are null and void. This view has been taken for the
reason that conditions restricting alienations are given
under clause (4) of Rule 43-G and these provisions
would apply to grant of lands made under the preceding
rules and not apply to Rule 43-J which comes after Rule
43-G of the Rules of 1960. This view has been taken
based on the title/marginal note of Rule 43-G. The Full
Bench was also of the view that under Rule 43-J, it is
not stated that there shall be any conditions prohibiting
alienation. Therefore, the court held that authorities
were not empowered to impose any such conditions.
25.1. The Supreme Court, after noting the findings of the Full
Bench of this Court, held as under:
- 37 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
12. When the rule itself says that where the grant is
made free of cost or at a price which is less than the full
market value, such grant shall be subject to the
condition that the land shall not be alienated for a period
of 15 years from the date of the grantee taking
possession of the land after the grant, such conditions
could be imposed on any grant made to the party.
13. In any case, the High Court failed to take into
account the clear language employed in Section 4,
according to which any transfer of granted land made
either before or after the commencement of this Act 'in
contravention of the terms of the grant of such land'
shall be null and void(emphasis supplied). The violation
of the terms of grant itself gives rise to the action
under Section 4 read with Section 5. So long as the
terms of the grant prohibiting transfer are not opposed
to any specific provision of law, they cannot be violated
and the transferee gets no rights by virtue of such
invalid transfer. That is the sum and substance
of Section 4 which has not been duly considered by the
High Court.
14. It is also pertinent to note that the prohibition
regarding alienation is a restrictive covenant binding on
the grantee. The grantee is not challenging that
condition. In all these proceedings, challenge is made
by the third party who purchased the land from the
grantee. The third party is not entitled to say that the
conditions imposed by the grantor to the grantee were
void. As far as the contract of sale is concerned, it was
entered into between the Government and the grantee
and at that time the third party purchaser had no
interest in such transaction. Of course, he would be
entitled to challenge the violation of any statutory
provisions but if the grant by itself specifically says that
there shall not be any alienation by the grantee for a
period of 15 years, that is binding on the grantee so
long as he does not challenge that clause, more so
when he purchased the land, inspite of being aware of
the condition. The Full Bench seriously erred in holding
that the land was granted under Rule 43-J and that the
authorities were not empowered to impose any
conditions regarding alienation without adverting
- 38 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
to Section 4 of the Act 2 of 1979. These lands were
given to landless persons almost free of cost and it was
done as a social welfare measure to improve the
conditions of poor landless persons. When these lands
were purchased by third parties taking advantage of
illiteracy and poverty of the grantees, Act 2 of 1979 was
passed with a view to retrieve these lands from the third
party purchasers. …
15. The conditions restricting alienation imposed by the
authorities are legally valid and the finding of the Full
Bench to the contrary is not correct and the impugned
Judgment is thus not sustainable in law. The impugned
Judgment is set aside, the order passed by the learned
Single Judge is upheld and these appeals are allowed.
The authorities shall take appropriate steps pursuant to
the order passed by the authorities under the Act 2 of
1979 within a period of three months. There will be no
order as to costs.
26. In the present case, the learned Single Judge noticing
1
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Guntaiah as
well as the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of
2 3
Hambamma and Chikka Kullegowda held as under:
93. This judgment was approved by the Full Bench in
Chikka Kullegowda's case. However, in that case, the
Full Bench was not concerned with a land granted
under the GMF Scheme and was actually dealing with a
case where lands had been temporarily leased to
certain persons belonging to scheduled castes or
scheduled tribes before the commencement of the
Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960 and
were subsequently granted under Rule 43J (paragraph
2 of the judgment). The Full Bench in that case
approved the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in
Siddamma's case in the context of Rule 43G not being
applicable to a land granted under Rule 43J, but since
- 39 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
this case was not concerning a land granted under the
GMF Scheme, the same can have no application
directly.
94. This decision of the Full Bench was approved by
another Full Bench in Hambamma's case which held
that the period of 15 years non-alienation cannot be
applied for lands granted under Rule 43J. However, this
judgment has been reversed by the Apex Court
in Guntaiah's case and, therefore, the argument is
being advanced that even in respect of lands granted
under the GMF scheme, if the grantee is a person
belonging to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe,
the PTCL Act would be applicable.
95. It must be noticed here that in Guntaiah's case also,
the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which lands
had been granted to persons belonging to scheduled
castes or scheduled tribes who had been given these
lands on a temporary lease and had thereafter granted
to them permanently (paragraph 2 of the judgment) and
was not dealing with a land which had been granted
under the GMF scheme. In my view, therefore, the
reliance placed on this judgment can be of no avail.”
27. The learned Single Judge after noticing the Government
Order dated 11.04.1942 (pertaining to the GMF Scheme, which has
been extracted at para 96 of the impugned order) held as under:
97. It must be noticed here that the Government did not
make any special reservation to persons belonging to
depressed classes nor did they extend any concession
to them specifically. This scheme was thrown open to
the public in general and was made available to any
person who came forward to put unoccupied lands to
cultivation, given the background that there was severe
shortage of grains and imperative steps were to be
taken to increase the production. The order, in fact,
states that the normal procedures of Darkhasts should
- 40 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
be simplified so that delay in grant of the lands were
minimized.
98. Thus, the Government Order was, in essence, a
relaxation to the normal land grant rules which
contained various restrictions on granted lands. If the
lands are permitted to be occupied for putting the same
under cultivation and if the occupier is given the option
of purchasing the same after 3 or 5 years, if he has
brought the lands leased to him under cultivation, it is
obvious that such kind of grants cannot be imposed with
the restrictive clauses which would be applied in respect
of the normal grants.
99. It must be kept in mind that under the normal land
grant rules, the procedure for reserving lands to
depressed classes and allotting it to them because they
belong to depressed classes would make it a granted
land, which would, in turn, attract the restrictive clauses.
However, if the lands are allotted in relaxation of the
rules, obviously the restrictive clauses can have no
application.
28. It is apposite to notice a judgment in the case of
4
Nanjamma and others v. State of Karnataka and others ,
whereunder a learned Single Judge of this Court was considering a
fact situation wherein land was granted under the GMF Scheme
under Rule 43-J of the Rules. The proceedings for resumption were
initiated under the provisions of the PTCL Act, which was allowed
by the Assistant Commissioner and affirmed by the Deputy
Commissioner. The learned Single Judge noticed that the lands in
4
Order dated 25.02.2022 in WP No.12748 of 2011
- 41 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
question having been granted under the GMF Scheme, the grantee
had paid the upset price and secured the title of the said property.
Hence, the learned Single Judge, after noticing the various other
1
judgments including the judgment in the case of Guntaiah held
that the land granted under the GMF Scheme at an upset price
does not fall under the definition of “granted land”. Hence, set aside
the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy
Commissioner, who had ordered for resumption of the lands. It has
also been noticed in the impugned order that the writ appeal filed
challenging the order of the learned Single Judge passed in the
4
case of Nanjamma was rejected by the Division Bench in the case
5
of Sri.B.Shivalingaiah v. Smt.Nanjamma and others as well as
6
by the Supreme Court .
29. It is to be noticed that in order for the provisions of the
PTCL Act to be applicable to the facts of the present case, the
predecessors in title of the appellant i.e., the persons who made
the application for resumption namely Smt. Gowramma and
Smt. Bylamma ought to have demonstrated that the grant made in
5
Order dt.19.09.2022 in WA No.339/2022
6
Sri.B.Shivalingaiah v. Smt.Nanjamma and others in SLP(c) No.4224/2023 order dated
24.02.2023.
- 42 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
favour of Sri. Anjanappa was with certain conditions; that
Sri. Anjanappa was a person belonging to Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribe so as to attract the prohibition contained
under Section 4 of the PTCL Act; and further that the land has
been transferred in violation of the conditions of grant. The order
dated 21.02.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner allowing
the applications for resumption have been set aside by the order
dated 22.05.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, which was
impugned before the learned Single Judge.
30. In this context, it is pertinent to note here that the
Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 21.02.2019 affirmed the
earlier order for resumption dated 02.09.2014 passed by the
Assistant Commissioner (the order dated 02.09.2014 was passed
at the first instance and the order dated 21.02.2019 was passed
after remand). It is forthcoming from a perusal of the order dated
02.09.2014 that the application for resumption was made by
Smt. Gowramma and Smt. Bylamma with respect to the lands
granted to Sri. Anjanappa. It was stated that after the demise of
Sri. Anjanappa, his wife Smt. Venkatamma inherited the land and
sold the same in favour of Sri. B.G.Muniyappa vide registered Sale
- 43 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
Deed dated 05.04.1967. The land which resumption was sought
was described as “old Survey No.259- Re.Survey No. 259/22 - now
new Survey No. 376, measuring 2 acres situated at Betta-Halasur
Village, Jala Hobli, previously in Devanali Taluk, now in Bangalore
North (Additional) Taluk”. It further stated that Sri. Anjanappa was
the father of the petitioner No.1 (Gowramma) and father-in-law of
the petitioner No.2 (Bylamma). The Assistant Commissioner held
that the land was sold vide Sale Deed dated 05.07.1967 in favour
of Sri. B.G.Muniyappa, within one year from the date of the
Saguvali Chit dated 23.05.1966.
31. It is clear from the findings recorded in the said order
dated 02.09.2014 that the Assistant Commissioner had not noticed
the fact that while Smt. Gouramma and Smt. Bylamma were
claiming through Sri. Anjanappa, the property in respect of which
the application was filed was the property granted to
Smt. Koramara Venkatamma. Even in the subsequent order dated
21.02.2019, although all the relevant details demonstrating the
distinction in the grants made in favour of Sri. Anjanappa and
Smt. Koramara Venkatamma were placed on record, the Assistant
Commissioner, vide order dated 21.02.2019 proceeded to confirm
- 44 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
the earlier order dated 02.09.2014. Hence the Deputy
Commissioner was justified in setting aside the orders passed by
the Assistant Commissioner and the learned Single Judge was
justified in dismissing the writ petitions.
32. In any event, the assertions made in the application for
resumption by Smt. Gowramma and Smt.Bylamma are with regard
to the land granted to Anjanappa (Survey No. 259/18) and not with
regard to the land granted to Smt. Koramara Venkatamma (Survey
No. 259/22), although the description of property was the land
granted to Smt. Koramara Venkatamma.
33. Having regard to the fact that there is an inherent
contradiction with regard to the case put forth in the application for
resumption with regard to the person to whom the land is granted
vis-à-vis
the land which resumption is sought, the question of the
Assistant Commissioner recording a finding regarding violation of
the provisions of PTCL Act does not arise. Hence, the reliance
1
placed by the appellants on the case of Guntaiah would not aid
their case and the said contention is liable to be rejected.
- 45 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
WITH REGARD TO W.A.NO.1343/2015 FILED BY STATE:
34. W.A.No.1343/2025 is filed by the State being aggrieved
by the decision of the learned Single Judge to impose exemplary
₹
costs of 10,00,000/-. In this context, it is relevant to note that the
learned Single Judge, upon appreciating the factual matrix, noticed
that consequent to the order of resumption dated 02.09.2014
passed by the Assistant Commissioner, no proceedings were
initiated by Smt. Gowramma and Smt. Bylamma for taking
possession of the land in question. It is also pertinent to note that
the 2 acres of land that was granted to Smt. Koramara
Venkatamma was purchased by Sri. B.G.Muniyappa vide the
registered Sale Deed dated 05.04.1967. Upon the death of
Sri. B.G.Muniyappa, the said granted land (an extent of 2 acres)
devolved upon his sons Sri. B.M.Govindaraju and
Sri. B.M.Narayanaswamy. Sale Deed dated 16.09.2006 was
executed by Sri. B.M.Narayanaswamy and his children conveying 1
acre of the said granted land (i.e., Survey No. 259/22) in favour of
Sri. A.J.James and his wife Smt. Ancy James. The land purchased
by Sri. A.J.James and his wife has been assigned a fresh survey
number i.e., Survey No.376. The balance extent of 1 acre of the
- 46 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
granted land was retained by Sri. B.M. Govindaraju, the other son
of Sri. B.G. Muniyappa. The said Sri. B.M. Govindaraju having
since deceased, his widow and children i.e., Smt. Susheelamma,
Sri. Bhaskar and Sri Shashidhar are in enjoyment of the balance
extent of 1 acre of land granted to Smt. Koramara Venkatamma.
The successors in interest of Smt. Koramara Venkatamma as well
as Sri. A.J.James and his wife are the private respondents in writ
petitions as well as the present appeals.
35. With respect to the portion of the property purchased by
Sri. A.J.James and his wife Smt. Ancy James, it is contended that,
consequent to the purchase of the property, they have built a farm
house and are in possession and enjoyment of the said extent of 1
acre.
36. It is the contention of the private respondents that
consequent to the order of resumption dated 02.09.2014 passed by
the Assistant Commissioner, without the original applicants to the
resumption proceedings i.e., Smt. Gowramma and Smt. Bylamma,
having initiated any proceedings for being put in possession of the
property consequent to the order of resumption, upon an
- 47 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
application made by Smt. Gowramma and Smt. Bylamma, the
Assistant Commissioner proceeded to pass the order dated
02.09.2014 granting permission to alienate the property;
consequent to which, Smt. Gowramma and Smt.Bylamma
executed the Sale Deed dated 14.10.2015 in favour of the
appellant, Sri. H.R. Suresh. It is the further contention of the private
respondents that Sri. H.R. Suresh, claiming right, title and interest
by virtue of the said Sale Deed dated 14.10.2015 has forcibly taken
possession of the property from the private respondents.
37. In this context, the learned Single Judge noticed that
consequent to an order for resumption passed under Section
5(1)(a) of the PTCL Act, under Section 5(1)(b) of the said Act, the
Assistant Commissioner is required to restore the land to the
original grantee or his legal heirs and only if that is not practicable,
the land is deemed to be vested in the State and the State will have
to grant the land to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes. The said Section 5 of the PTCL Act reads as
under:
“5. Resumption and restitution of granted lands: -
1) Where, on application by any interested person or
on information given in writing by any person or suo-
- 48 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
motu, and after such enquiry as he deems necessary,
the Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that the
transfer of any granted land is null and void under
Sub-section (1) of Section 4, he may, -
(a) by order take possession of such land after
evicting all persons in possession thereof in such
manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that no such order shall be made except
after giving the person affected a reasonable
opportunity of being heard;
(b) restore such land to the original grantee or his
legal heir. Where it is not reasonably practicable to
restore the land to such grantee or legal heir; such
land shall be deemed to have vested in the
Government free from all encumbrances. The
Government may grant such land to a person
belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes in accordance with the rules
relating to grant of land.
(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law,
there shall be no limitation of time to invoke the
provisions of this Act.
(d) the provisions of clause (c) shall apply to all cases
pending before all the competent authorities and
all Courts of Law adjudicating the cases under this
section.”
38. Further, the learned Single Judge has noticed that under
the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Rules, 1979 (PTCL
Rules), Rule 3 stipulated the procedure for resumption and
restitution of granted land. The said Rule 3 reads as under:
- 49 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
“3. Resumption and restitution of granted lands:
(1) Every application by any interest person under
Section 5 shall be in Form I.
(2) On receipt of an application or information under
sub-section(1) of Section 5, the Assistant
Commissioner may direct the applicant or informant,
as the case may be, to furnish such further
particulars or information as may be required and fix
a date for furnishing the same.
(3) After receipt of the particulars or information if
any, called for under sub rule (2), the Assistant
Commissioner shall, by a notice in Form II, require
the person or persons in possession of the granted
land to file objections, to the claim with documentary
evidence, if any, within such reasonable time, as the
Assistant Commissioner may think fit in the
circumstances of the case.
(4) The Assistant Commissioner shall fix a date for
hearing notice of which shall be given to the applicant
or the informant as the case may be other interested
persons and persons objecting the claim. A copy of
the notice shall also be affixed on the notice Board of
the Office of the Assistant Commissioner and the
concerned Taluk Office.
(5) Save as otherwise provided in these rules, the
Assistant Commissioner shall for the purpose of an
enquiry under Section 5, follow the procedure for a
formal enquiry under Section 33 of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, 1964.
(6) After enquiry, the Assistant Commissioner shall
consider all the objections raised and pass an order
giving reasons for his conclusions. Thereafter he may
take possession of such land after evicting the
- 50 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
persons in possession thereof in the manner
specified in Section 39 of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964 and take further action as
provided in Section 5.
(7) The provision of sub-rules (2) to (6) shall mutatis
mutandis apply to suo motu action, if any taken by
the Assistant Commissioner.”
[
39. The learned Single Judge, after noticing the material on
record has held that no proceedings as contemplated under
Section 5(1)(b) of the Act or Rule 3 of the PTCL Rules were
initiated by the Assistant Commissioner.
40. Further, Section 39 of the KLR Act, which contemplated
the manner of evicting any person in wrongful possession of the
land was noticed by the learned Single Judge. The said Section 39
of the KLR Act reads as under:
“39. Manner of evicting any person wrongfully in
possession of land.—
Whenever it is provided by this Act or any other law
for the time being in force that the Deputy
Commissioner may or shall evict any person
wrongfully in possession of land or where any order to
deliver possession of land has been passed against
any person under this Act, such eviction shall be
made or such order shall be executed, as the case
may be, in the following manner, namely: —
- 51 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
(i) by serving a notice on the person or persons in
possession requiring them within such time as may
appear reasonable after receipt of the said notice to
vacate the land, and
(ii) if such notice is not obeyed, by removing or
deputing a subordinate officer to remove any person
who may refuse to vacate the same, and
(iii) if the officer removing any such person is resisted
or obstructed by any person, the Deputy
Commissioner or the Revenue Officer, as the case
may be, shall hold a summary inquiry into the facts of
the case and, if satisfied that the resistance or
obstruction was without any just cause and that such
resistance and obstruction still continues, may, without
prejudice to any proceedings to which such person
may be liable under any law for the time being in force
for the punishment of such resistance or obstruction,
take or cause to be taken, such steps and use or
cause to be used, such force as may, in the opinion of
such officer, be reasonably necessary for securing
compliance with the order.”
41. The learned Single Judge has also noticed that no
proceedings were initiated by the concerned authorities (Deputy
Commissioner) for evicting the private respondents from the land in
question as contemplated under Section 39 of the KLR Act.
Further, the learned Single Judge has noticed the affidavit dated
17.12.2024 filed by the Assistant Commissioner wherein, it was
stated that there was no material to indicate that the procedure for
- 52 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
eviction was undertaken. The Assistant Commissioner has also
issued an endorsement dated 17.10.2018 to Sri. A. J. James, in
which it is stated that no notices were issued as contemplated
under Rule 3(6) of the PTCL Rules or under Section 39 of the KLR
Act. In view of the said findings, the learned Single Judge while
₹
awarding exemplary costs of 10,00,000/- , held as under:
“119. It cannot be in dispute that in a proceeding under
the PTCL Act, a grantee or his legal heir is not in
possession of the lands that had been granted to him, as
he would have admittedly transferred them to another in
contravention of the terms of the grant under an
instrument. It is only after this transfer is declared to be
null and void can the transferee be evicted and the land
be restored to the grantee or his legal heir.
120. If the persons in possession i.e., the transferee are
not dispossessed in the manner specified in Rule 3(6) of
the PTCL Rules and Section 39 of the KLR Act, the
question of restoring the land to the grantee would never
arise.
121. However, in this case, without verifying this
elementary fact as to whether the transferees who were
admittedly in possession had been dispossessed, the
authorities have entertained the application filed by
Gowramma and Bylamma seeking permission to sell the
land which ordered to be resumed in their favour.
- 53 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
122. In fact, in the recommendation made by the Deputy
Commissioner, which is already extracted above, they
have gone on to observe that Gowramma and Bylamma
were already in possession. This has been done
obviously for extraneous considerations.
123. In fact, pursuant to the complaint lodged by
A.J.James, an enquiry had been ordered by the
Government and the Regional Commissioner has
submitted a report that there were several illegalities in
the grant of permission and steps should be taken to
cancel the permission accorded. This report, by itself,
proves the callous manner in which the officials have
acted and which has resulted in H.R.Suresh taking
advantage of the situation and dispossessing A.J.James
and his wife, and also the wife and children of
B.M.Govindaraju and also caused damage to their
property.
124. In fact, A.J.James has placed on record, material to
show that the farmhouse that he had constructed has
been damaged considerably and material in this regard
was also placed before the Assistant Commissioner and
the Deputy Commissioner, but they have not passed any
order in this regard.
125. In my view, since the according of permission by the
State to H.R.Suresh without even verifying whether the
land had been resumed and restored to Gowramma and
Bylamma is the root cause of the trauma and damage
- 54 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
caused to A.J.James and his wife, it would be
appropriate to impose exemplary costs of Rs.10,00,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lakhs) to be paid by the State to A.J.
James and his wife. Ordered accordingly.”
(emphasis supplied)
42. Although there is abundant material to demonstrate that,
forcible possession of the property has been taken from the private
respondents, it is not clear that the officials of the State were also
involved in the same. Whilst the learned Single Judge has rightly
found that the Assistant Commissioner ought not to have
considered the application for permission to alienate without the
applicants having been put in possession of the property pursuant
to the order of resumption dated 02.09.2014, the said circumstance
₹
alone would not justify the imposition of exemplary costs of 10
₹
Lakh. Accordingly, the cost of 10 Lakh imposed on the State by
₹
the learned Single Judge is reduced to 50,000/- with liberty to the
State to recover the cost from the concerned officials after
conducting an enquiry in that regard. This order will not preclude
the private respondents from initiating appropriate proceedings as
may be permissible under law for claiming damages for any loss.
- 55 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
43. Further, while dealing with the aspect as to the manner in
which the appellant was put in possession of the property pursuant
to the Sale Deed dated 14.10.2015 executed by Smt. Gowramma
and Smt. Bylamma, the learned Single Judge held as under:
“126. During the course of arguments, to a specific query
as to how H.R.Suresh got possession, it was stated that
Gowramma and Bylamma were in possession and they
had handed over the possession.
127. This reply cannot obviously be acceptable since
Gowramma and Bylamma in their application seeking
resumption themselves had requested the Assistant
Commissioner to restore the lands in their favour. It is
therefore obvious that H.R. Suresh has used the sale
deed executed in his favour to secure possession to
himself without even verifying whether A.J.James, his
wife and others had been dispossessed in accordance
with law pursuant to the order of resumption that had
been passed by the Assistant Commissioner. It would
therefore also be necessary to impose exemplary costs
on H.R. Suresh in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five
Lakhs) for taking law into his own hands and
dispossessing A.J.James and his wife, and also the wife
and children of B.M.Govindaraju. Ordered accordingly.”
44. As noticed by the learned Single Judge, it was claimed
by the predecessor in title of the appellants [namely
Smt. Gawramma and Smt. Bylamma] that they had handed over
possession of the property to the appellant/writ petitioner upon
execution of the Sale Deed dated 14.10.2015. However, there is no
material on record to indicate that, consequent to the Assistant
- 56 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
Commissioner, having ordered for resumption of lands vide order
dated 02.09.2014, any proceedings were initiated by the said
Smt. Gowramma and/or Smt. Bylamma, as contemplated under
law for being put in possession of the property, the resumption of
which was ordered. On the other hand, there is abundant material
on record to demonstrate that the appellant/writ petitioner has
forcibly taken possession of property from the private respondents
and also caused damage to the farmhouse constructed by
Sri. A.J.James and his wife, Smt. Ancy James. Having regard to
the said factual matrix, no ground has been made out by the writ
petitioner/appellant in the appeals filed by him to interfere with the
order of the learned Single Judge in imposing costs.
45. The writ petitioner/appellant has failed in demonstrating
that the order of the learned Single Judge is in any manner
erroneous and liable to be interfered by this Court in the present
appeals.
46. Accordingly, Writ Appeal Nos.218/2025, 223/2025 and
225/2025 are dismissed. W.A.No.1343/2025 filed by the State is
partly allowed to the extent specified in para 42 hereinabove.
- 57 -
WA No. 218 of 2025
C/W WA No. 223 of 2025
WA No. 225 of 2025
WA No. 1343 of 2025
47. Interim applications, if any, stands disposed of.
SD/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
SD/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
ND/BS/PMP/RKM/YAN