Petitioners challenged restoration orders against land they claimed was converted via GPA. The Court found no valid title documents were placed on record and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merits.
The writ petition was dismissed as it was found to be devoid of merits.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:24410 WP No. 23129 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.23129 OF 2019 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
BENGALURU - 560 006
Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.RANGASWAMY M.T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2023:KHC:24410 WP No. 23129 of 2019
RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 10 ARE R/AT GANGONDAHALLI VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI
NC: 2023:KHC:24410 WP No. 23129 of 2019
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI. MAHESH
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1 TO 3, SMT.LAKSHMI IYENGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR MR.M.S.MUKKARAM, ADVOCATE FOR R.5 TO R.10)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.04.2019 PASSED BY THE R.2 IN CASE NO.PTCL (APPEAL) 91/2018 AS PER ANNEXURE -B AND IMPUGNED PASSED BY THE R.3 IN THE CASE DATED 23.08.2018 AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This matter is de-linked from
W.P.No.21338/2019.
petitioner assailing the concurrent orders passed by the respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner and the respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner vide
Annexures-A and B.
and respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner after assessing the materials on record have come to the conclusion that the present petitioners have not placed on record any title documents to assert their rights over the land bearing Sy. No.17, which was granted to one Mahalingappa.
both Authorities concurrently held that the petitioners have secured the conversion order in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.56/10 and not in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.17. It is in this background, both Authorities have proceeded to order for restoration and the said orders are under challenge.
respondent Nos.4 to 10 and learned HCGP. Perused the concurrent orders passed by both the Authorities.
the hands of this Court is
Whether respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner was justified in ordering for restoration of the petition land.
is no alienation either in favour of the petitioners or any other third parties. Though the petitioners are asserting
right over the petition land alleging that they have purchased the subject matter of the petition land, however, both the Authorities on examining the records, have come to the conclusion that no sale deeds are placed on record by the alleged purchasers. Further, both Authorities have also concurrently held that the petitioners, who are asserting possessory right based on GPA alleged to have been executed by respondent No.11, have failed to substantiate their right over the granted land. If petitioners have secured conversion order in respect of the agricultural land bearing Sy. No.56/10, the fact that they are asserting possession over the granted land would immediately attract the provisions of the "PTCL Act". This aspect is rightly dealt by the respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner.
NC: 2023:KHC:24410 WP No. 23129 of 2019
do not find any illegalities and infirmities in the order under challenge. The petitioners have no semblance of right over the granted land. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge.
to pass the following;
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.
(ii) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.
Sd/JUDGE
NBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0
3 issues framed by the court
Whether respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner was justified in ordering for restoration of the petition land.
Whether the petitioners have valid title or possessory right over the granted land attracting provisions of the PTCL Act.
Whether the concurrent orders impugned by the petitioners are devoid of merits and illegalities.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
YALAVENI
G.V. GOWRAMMA
STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION
SUSHEELAMMA
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
