Grantee sought resumption of granted land sold during the 15-year prohibition period. The court held that a second Section 5 PTCL application after rejection of the first was barred by estoppel and abandonment, and that an unchallenged Divisional Commissioner order declining to disturb the alienation could not be reopened.
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: 2024:KHC:19941 WP No. 49447 of 2013
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 49447 OF 2013 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
BASAVARAJAPPA, S/O LATE CHANDRAPPA, DEAD BY HIS LRS,
1(A). SMT. RENUKAMMA, W/O LATE G.C. BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
1(B). AKASH,
ADOPTED S/O LATE G.C. BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
1(B) IS THE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN I.E., PETITIONER NO.1(A) SMT. RENUKAMMA
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MANGENAHALLI, MADIKERE POST, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G.C. SHANMUKHA, ADVOCATE FOR P1(A AND B); P1(B) IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY P1(A))
AND:
DAVANAGERE.
5(B). RAJAPPA, S/O HUCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/O CAMPNORA MANE, MAYAKONDA AT AND POST, DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
5(E). SRINIVASA, S/O HUCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
5(G). VIJAYAKUMA, S/O HUCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
5(A) TO (C) AND 5(E) TO (G) ARE RESIDING AT GEDDAHATTI, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANGERE, DATED 15.7.13, VIDE ANN-D AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2024:KHC:19941 WP No. 49447 of 2013
ORDER
Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere, in No.PTCL/CR-04/2008-09 dated 15.7.2013 (Annexure D).
Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including an order as to costs in the interest of justice and equity.
of Duggamma, i.e., respondent No.5 herein and another 3 acres of land in favour of Lakkamma on 19.10.1964. Thus, alienating the entire property granted to them.
Pursuant to that, the revenue records were changed in the name of Chandrappa.
15.07.2013 set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner on several grounds. One of the main grounds is that the purchaser has been in possession of the land for more than 49 years, so their possession cannot be disturbed. It is challenging the same; the petitioner is before this Court.
9.1. Even prior to the proceedings filed before this Court once earlier, the said Chandrappa had filed a proceeding before the Assistant Commissioner, Shivamogga, in proceedings bearing No.159/499/79-80, which came to be disposed of by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 16.10.192 produced at AnnexureR2 to the statement of objections filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5.
9.2. The Assistant Commissioner came to the conclusion that Chandrappa did not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, and as such, he was not eligible for restoration of land under the provision of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) 1978 (for short, the "P.T.C.L. Act").
under Rule 43-G of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960, on the basis of the report of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga, dated 02.04.1983. The Divisional Commissioner has come to a categorical conclusion that even though the sale was executed within the prohibition period, the sale ought not to be disturbed since the purchasers have been in possession of the land for the last 20 years.
9.4. By relying on the above two orders, he submits that firstly, an earlier application filed by the grantee Chandrappa has been dismissed, which has not been challenged and, as such, has attained finality, and a fresh application could not have been filed in the year 1999-2000. Secondly, he contends that even though the sale may be within the period of prohibition, the Divisional Commissioner has held that the same
NC: 2024:KHC:19941 WP No. 49447 of 2013
cannot be a ground which could be contended by Chandrappa and now his legal heirs before this Court.
9.5. He relies upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court reported in the case of V. HANUMANTHAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS REVENEUE SECRETARY AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2006 KAR 174, more particularly para 27 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
27. I have examined the matter in a little greater detail than such orders merit consideration in the exercise of 227 jurisdiction by this Court. In the first instance, this is an unusual situation where an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner which was one being made subject matter of an appeal under Section 5A of the Act and on disposal of the appeal on merits and had become concluded, is again sought to be made subject matter of yet another appeal, seven years after the passing of the appellate order by the very appellate authority and yet another appeal entertained under the very appellate jurisdiction. The order of the Assistant Commissioner gets merged in the appellate order once the appellate authority has examined such an order on merit in the appeal and the original order does not exist independently any more.
NC: 2024:KHC:19941 WP No. 49447 of 2013
9.6. Relying on Sri. Hanumanthaiah’s case, he
submits that the earlier order passed by the Assistant Commissioner would amount to res judicata, and no fresh application would be filed.
9.7. He also relies upon the decision of another Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
MARIYAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPORTED in W.P.No.37765/2012 dated 05.12.2013, more particularly para 2 and 5 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
2. By the said order, the Deputy Commissioner has reversed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Subdivision, Bangalore, and has held that the alienation of 3 acres of land comprised in Survey No.50 situated at B.K.Palya Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, was in violation of the provisions of the Act and was therefore null and void. The Deputy Commissioner ordered for resumption of the land to the Government and restoration of the same in favour of the original grantee / his legal heirs.
5. Again fresh proceedings were sought to be initiated. This time by one Muniraju – 4th
respondent herein who is another legal representative of the original grantee (son of Doddamuniyappa who is none other than the grand-son of Munisami). The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the application holding that the 4th respondent cannot maintain such an application as the dispute had attained finality. An appeal was preferred against the said order of the Assistant Commissioner by the 4th respondent before the Deputy Commissioner. By the impugned order, Deputy Commissioner has set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and has ordered resumption and restoration of the land.
once the earlier application has been dismissed, the question of a fresh application being filed could not arise. The authorities concerned ought not to have considered the second application. Considering the same, there would be uncertainty for the litigants, knowing not how many times they could be dragged into litigation, which they were under the impression was closed.
9.9. He further relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of NARAYANASWMAY VS. THE DISTRICT
NC: 2024:KHC:19941 WP No. 49447 of 2013
COMMISSIONVER VS. BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2020 KAR 30 more particularly para 10 and 11 thereof which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
10. In this context, it is relevant to advert to one aspect of the matter, which may not have been dealt with by the authorities as well as by the learned Single Judge but the same may be relevant for the purpose of deciding the maintainability of the present proceedings. As stated supra, the proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act having been originally initiated by the appellant and the sixth respondent in the year 2007, the same was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner. The appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner was dismissed as withdrawn pursuant to a memo dated 16th June 2014 (Annexure-E to the writ petition) under which, the appellant and the sixth respondent have unconditionally withdrew the appeal. Under these circumstances, having unconditionally withdrawn the appeal as well as the earlier proceedings initiated by them, the appellant and the sixth respondent could not have initiated the fresh proceedings once again for a second time under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act on the same set of facts and on the same cause of action in respect of the same subject matter, i.e., the schedule property.
11. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts and circumstances, we are of the view that once the proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act are filed/initiated and the same are either withdrawn or dismissed on merits, a fresh petition/second petition on the same cause of action and the same subject matter under Sections
NC: 2024:KHC:19941 WP No. 49447 of 2013
4 and 5 of the PTCL Act is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The second petition is clearly barred by the principles of estoppel, acquiescence, abandonment and waiver. Accordingly, though a finding in this regard has not been recorded by either the learned Single Judge or the authorities, having regard to the undisputed material on record, a second petition under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act would not be maintainable and the same is liable to be rejected on this ground alone.
dispute. The sale occurred on 19.10.1964, the P.T.C.L. Act came into force on 01.01.1979, and the grantee Chandrappa filed a proceeding before the Assistant Commissioner in No.159/499/79-80.
13.2.The original grantee challenged the sale and sought resumption, but the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the application on
NC: 2024:KHC:19941 WP No. 49447 of 2013
16.10.1992. There is no dispute regarding the
said order having been passed. There is also no dispute that Chandrappa has not challenged the said order. Therefore, the said order dated 16.10.1992 of the Assistant Commissioner has attained finality.
13.3.It is subsequently, in the year 2000, that the very same grantee, Chandrappa, filed a fresh application, which came to be registered as PTCL/CNC/3/99-2000 before the Assistant Commissioner again seeking for setting aside the sale deed and for resumption of the land. In the said proceedings, the details of the earlier order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 16.10.1992 were not mentioned; therefore, I am of the considered opinion that such non-mentioning would amount to suppression of relevant facts.
13.4.In that background, the said proceedings were
considered, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the application, and the appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner came to be rejected in a writ petition filed before this Court; this Court remanded the matter for consideration before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner again on 02.04.2008 in PTCL/CR/5/2006-07 allowed the application, which on appeal came to be reversed by the Deputy Commissioner. The proceedings from 1999-2000, in my opinion, are nonest inasmuch as an earlier application that had been filed by the very same grantee before the Assistant Commissioner was rejected.
13.5.Once an earlier application is rejected, the only
available option was for the grantee is to challenge the same in an appropriate forum to its logical conclusion. Not having challenged
the said order, in my considered opinion, would amount to estoppel, acquiescence, and abandonment of the claim on the part of such grantee, depriving him of any further right to file a fresh application for cancellation of the sale deed and resumption of land as done in the present case in the year 1999-2000.
13.6. This aspect has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
NARAYANASWAMY VS. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN
DISTRICT AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2020 KAR 303, though in that matter, a challenge was made to the order of the Assistant Commissioner before the Deputy Commissioner and the appeal was withdrawn by
the grantee, and in such circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that the same would amount to
acquiescence and abandonment. The present case is worse than that inasmuch as the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner has never been challenged.
13.7. Hence, I answer point No.1 by holding that once an application filed by the grantee under Section 5 of the P.T.C.L. Act is rejected, the only option available is to challenge such an order. No fresh application can be filed by such a grantee and/or the legal heirs claiming under such a grantee.
dated 02.04.1983, proceedings were initiated before the Divisional Commissioner, Bengaluru, for resumption of land on account of violation of the period of prohibition in the grant made, the said period being 15 years. The Divisional Commissioner, vide his detailed order dated 07.09.1984, having considered the same, has come to a conclusion that though the land was granted subject to the condition that the same would not be alienated for a period of 15 years and that the land was alienated within one year
from the date of grant, considering that the alienees - respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein were in possession of land for the last 20 years, it was clearly unjust to cancel the land granted to the grantee and resume the same to the government.
all the issues and a reasoned order having been
passed by the Divisional Commissioner, that, despite the transfer having occurred within the prohibited period, ought not to be disturbed being a decision of the State and not having been challenged by the Grantee, would create an embargo for the petitioner now to challenge the alienation on the ground that the alienation made by himself is within the period of prohibition.
and has taken the time of the Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and this Court on two occasions for the simple reason that the documents as also the
earlier orders passed by the then Assistant
Commissioner, were not available for the subsequent Assistant Commissioner to be considered in respect of the very same land.
16.1.the application filed by the grantee,
16.2.deposition of the applicant and supporting
witness, if any,
16.3.the grant order,
16.4.gazette publication of the grant order,
16.5.books maintained by Tahsildar in respect of the Grant,
16.6.survey/ survey sketches of the granted land,
16.7.in case of auctions-auction details, nature of the
auction, details of the highest bidder, payment receipts,
16.8.grant register extract maintained by the
Tahsildar,
16.9.grant certificate/saguvali certificate/chits, saguvali certificate/chit register extract,
16.10. sketch prepared by the Tahsildar at the time of Grant,
16.11. Phodi particulars if any phodi has been conducted,
16.12. Kammi jasti patrike ,
16.13. Phodi parthi extract ,
16.14. Record of the rights tenancy of crops,
16.15. Index of lands,
16.16. Irsal patti,
16.17. Moola Tippani nakal,
16.18. Hissa tippani nakal,
16.19. phodi nakal, etc.,
particular document or location, going historically backward or forward. Entries relating to the Grant with reference to the Grant and concerned documents are to be entered into the RTC, and the documents are to be accessible by way of hyperlinks.
of proceedings before courts like, district courts, High Court etc., to be also captured.
24. Answer to Point No.3: What Order?
24.1.In view of my answer to points Nos.1 and 2 above, I pass the following
:: ORDER ::
ii. Revenue entries, if any, made in favour of the petitioner and/or the legal representatives are directed to be cancelled and such entries to be made in favour of respondent No.4 and the legal representatives of respondent No.5 within a period of 21 days of a receipt of a copy of this order.
NC: 2024:KHC:19941 WP No. 49447 of 2013
iii. Re-list on 23.07.2024 at 2.30 p.m. for
consideration of the report filed by the Principal Secretary.
Sd/JUDGE
GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32 CT: BHK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a grantee whose application for resumption under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was rejected can file a fresh application?
Whether an earlier decision that an alienation within the prohibition period ought not be disturbed bars re-raising that contention in later Section 5 PTCL proceedings?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V. Hanumanthaiah vs. State of Karnataka by its Revenue Secretary and OthersRelied on¶71
ILR 2006 KAR 174 · Who else cites this
Mariyappa vs. State of KarnatakaRelied on¶78
W.P.No.37765/2012 dated 05.12.2013
Narayanaswamy vs. The District Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and OthersRelied on¶88
ILR 2020 KAR 30 / ILR 2020 KAR 303 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Basavarajappa (dead by LRs: Smt. Renukamma and Akash)
The Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District
The Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere Sub-Division
The Tahsildar, Channagiri Taluk
Marthandappa
Duggamma (dead by her LRs)
Suraj Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
