Writ petition challenging the restoration of agricultural land. Court held that converted land falls outside PTCL Act scope, restoration was not maintainable due to exclusion of petitioner and lapse of time. Petitioner's relief granted as per coordinate bench judgment.
Impugned orders quashed; petitioner's name restored to land records.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP No. 2222 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 2222 OF 2022 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
DR SUNIL HEGDE S/O BALAKRISHNA HEGDE AGED 65 YEARS R/AT NO 183/3, SEENISH RMV 2ND STAGE, SANJAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560094
BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZENSHIP IS NOT CLIAMED
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SUBRAMANYA.R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.VINAYAKA.B VISHNU BATTA HARANAHALLI LAW PARTNERS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
WP No. 2222 of 2022
BENGALURU-560009
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1-R3; R4 & R5 SERVED)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R-3 DTD. 22.06.2016 / 22.07.2016 (PRODUCED AS ANNX-A) AND QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 23.04.2019 PASSED BY THE R-2 (PRODUCED AS ANNX-B) AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the purchaser questioning the order of third respondent-Deputy Commissioner confirming the order of the second
WP No. 2222 of 2022
respondent-Assistant Commissioner, allowing the
application filed by respondents 4 and 5 under Section 5 of PTCL Act.
WP No. 2222 of 2022
proceedings has not only ordered for restoration of agricultural lands against other purchasers but also included 0.6 guntas which was never part and parcel of the agricultural lands on account of the conversion order passed by the competent authority. The said order is confirmed by respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner.
the learned HCGP.
respondent have not chosen to contest the proceedings before this Court.
WP No. 2222 of 2022
set aside. If the purchasers in the very said survey number have succeeded before this Court and the application filed by respondents 4 and 5 under Section 5 of PTCL Act is rejected by this Court, then I am of the view that the petitioner is better placed as 0.6 guntas of land purchased by him is now converted. Hence, petitioner is also entitled for the relief in the light of the judgment rendered by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.20830/2019.
is part and parcel of Survey No.67, however, in the present case on hand, 0.6 guntas is a converted land. If the petition land is a converted land, then the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Munnaiah and others .vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore and others1 is squarely applicable to the present case on hand. The Full Bench while answering the reference held that once land is diverted, the same ceases
1 ILR 2021 KAR 3169
WP No. 2222 of 2022
to be a 'granted land' under the provisions of the PTCL Act.
WP No. 2222 of 2022
rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, restoration was sought in respect of the entire extent of land. But, however respondents 4 and 5 consciously and deliberately did not array the present petitioner. Therefore, the order of resumption passed by respondent No.3 is not sustainable on this count.
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
WP No. 2222 of 2022
(ii) The order dated 23.4.2019 passed by
respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner and the order dated 22.6.2016 passed by respondent No.3Deputy Commissioner are hereby quashed.
(iii) Consequently, the entries that were prevailing on the date of impugned restoration order are to be set aside and the name of the petitioner shall be restored in respect of the petition land.
Sd/JUDGE
ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 5 of the PTCL Act is applicable to restored agricultural land which has already been converted for commercial purposes.
Whether the restoration proceedings are maintainable as the respondents had consciously excluded the petitioner from the notice.
Whether the writ petition should be allowed based on the ruling in the coordinate bench judgment W.P.No.20830/2019.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Munnaiah and others vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore and othersDistinguished¶46
1 ILR 2021 KAR 3169 · Who else cites this
Co-Ordinate BenchFollowed¶41
W.P.No.20830/2019
2 provisions across 2 enactments
DR SUNIL HEGDE
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU
SRI R VENKATESH
SRI R MAHESH
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
