The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging orders rejecting a plea to quash a land transfer. The court held the petitioner failed to prove the land was 'granted land' protected under the PTCL Act or that it fell under the 'Grow more food' scheme, upholding the impugned orders.
No relief granted; writ petition dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 22398 OF 2019 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S SRI ANJANAPPA
S/O LATE SRI HANUMANTHRAYAPPA REP BY ITS G P A HOLDER
SRI K V GURUPRASAD AGED 45 YEARS S/O SRI VISHNU MURTHY RAO RESIDING AT FLAT NO.B.013 COMMANDER'S VISTA BEHIND RAMANASHREE, YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560 064
… PETITIONER
Digitally signed (BY SRI. CHANDAN K., ADVOCATE) by R DEEPA Location: High AND: Court of Karnataka
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 REPRESENTED BY JILSI KARAMSICHARIYA NO.544, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORMANGALA BENGALURU
(BY SRI. RAHUL KARIYAPPA, AGA FOR R5 & R6; SRI H.R. ANANTHA KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R4; V/O DATED 11.10.2023, NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2018 PASSED IN SCST (A) NO.10/2016-17 BY THE R-6 WHICH IMPUGNED ORDER IS ANNEXURED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the respondent No.6 dated 04.10.2018 vide Annexure-A.
The petitioner belongs to scheduled caste. In the year 1947-48 the property bearing Sy.Nos.9 and 11 of the Manchenahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk measuring 1 acre 20 guntas (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question' for short) was allotted to Late Marappa, who is the grandfather of the petitioner. The original grantee sold the land in favour of respondent No.1 under registered sale deed dated 24.11.1964 and thereafter respondent No.1 in turn sold the said land in favour of respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 in turn sold the property in favour of respondent No.4. The original grantee filed an application under Section 5 of
NC: 2023:KHC:41719 WP No. 22398 of 2019
Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as PTCL Act', for short) before the respondent No.5. The respondent No.5 vide order dated 15.03.2016 dismissed the application. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.5 preferred an appeal before the respondent No.6. The respondent No.6 vide order dated 04.10.2018 dismissed the appeal by confirming the order passed by respondent No.5. Hence, this writ petition.
produced any documents as to ascertain the nature and year of the grant of land in question. He submits that the petitioner has produced the revenue records which discloses that the lands are granted lands. The respondent No.5 without considering the documents produced has proceeded to pass an order. He submits that the order passed by the respondent No.5 is contrary to the records. He submits that the respondent No.6 without properly appreciating the contentions raised by the petitioner has dismissed the appeal. The orders passed by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 are arbitrary and erroneous and prays to allow the writ petition.
supports the impugned orders.
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
question are granted in favour of Marappa in the year
1947-48. In order to establish that the said lands were
granted in favour of Marappa, the petitioner has not produced any records to show that the said lands were granted in favour of Marappa. The petitioner has produced xerox copy of saguvali chit. The said saguvali chit does not pertain to the lands situated in Manchenalli Village. Admittedly, the lands in question is situated at Manchenalli Village and further the alleged grant does not find place in the copy of the saguvali chit. The respondent No.5 has doubted the authenticity of the document produced by the petitioner and further by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.T.Huchegowda Vs. Deputy commissioner reported in
ILR 1994 KAR 1839 held that the petitioner has not discharged the initial burden to show the lands in question is a granted land and not produced any documents and further held that there is no violation of provisions of PTCL Act and rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.6. The respondent No.6 on re-assessment
NC: 2023:KHC:41719 WP No. 22398 of 2019
of the material placed on record and also the respondent No.6 has secured the original records from the Taluka office, perused the same and observed that the property in question has been granted under the 'Grow more food scheme' where the said scheme was introduced by then State Government with an intention to increase the food production in the State, under which the respondent No.6 was authorized to grant uncultivated land to the persons who are agriculturists irrespective of caste and creed for a temporary period of not less than 3 years with an option to purchase the same at reasonable upset price which will not exceed the amount prescribed.
section i.e., scheduled caste and no documents have been produced to show that it was a granted lands, the petitioner has failed to prove his claim. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 were justified in passing the impugned orders. Hence, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned orders.
pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed.
SD/JUDGE
sks
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders dismissing the petitioners application and appeal under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 were arbitr
Whether the petitioner discharged the initial burden to prove that the lands in question were granted lands within the ambit of the protection of the PTCL Act.
Whether the provisions of the PTCL Act are applicable to lands classified as hangami saguvali under the Grow more food scheme.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K.T.Huchegowda Vs. Deputy commissioner reported in ILR 1994 KAR 1839Distinguished¶46
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S SRI ANJANAPPA S/O LATE SRI HANUMANTHRAYAPPA REP BY ITS G P A HOLDER SRI K V GURUPRASAD
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION BANGALORE
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION BENGALURU
ASHOK S. KINAGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court