Dismissed¶59

Sri Gurumurthy v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2025WP/20769/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PTCL Act Karnataka; Section 5A appeal pending before Deputy Commissioner; Section 4A prior permission for transfer; Sections 4 and 5 PTCL restoration application rejected by Assistant Commissioner; Section 136(2) Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 appeal; notice service procedural lapses; mutation proceedings; revenue records ownership and cultivator column; registered sale deed dated 12.01.1970; legal heirs of original grantee; RP No.119/2014-15; Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban District; Article 226; Article 300A right to property; writ petition dismissed; Bangalore South Taluk; Jigani Anekal.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition dismissed, with the clarification that the petitioners remain free to prosecute the appeal pending under Section 5A of the PTCL Act before the Deputy Commissioner. ¶59

Sri Gurumurthy Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; writ petition dismissed, with the clarification that the petitioners remain free to prosecute the appeal pending under Section 5A of the PTCL Act before the Deputy Commissioner.

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the private respondents (respondent Nos. 4 and 5), claiming title under the registered sale deed dated 12.01.1970, are entitled to have their names retained in the ownership and cultivator columns of the revenue records. +2 more

¶47

Court's answer

If the private respondents acquired title to the lands under the registered sale deed dated 12.01.1970, they are entitled to retain their names in both the ownership column and the cultivator's column in the revenue records; however, this entitlement is not absolute and remains subject to the outcome of the appeal pending before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A of the PTCL Act.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

Any decision in the pending Section 5A appeal will have a direct bearing on the rights and claims of both parties and must be addressed within the framework of the PTCL Act.

¶47

Key takeaways

The Court found it unnecessary to examine whether the Deputy Commissioner had properly verified service of notices while deciding the Section 136(2) Karnataka Land Revenue Act appeal; even assuming procedural lapses in service of notices, such issues are rendered inconsequential given the pendency of the PTCL Act appeal, and no relief is granted to the petitioners on that ground.ratio¶51
It is clarified that nothing in the order hinders or restricts the petitioners from independently pursuing the appeal currently pending before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A of the PTCL Act.obiter¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (KLR-RES) dismissed (High Court of Karnataka, Sachin Shankar Magadum J., 07.01.2025). Legal heirs of the original grantee sought quashing of the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 2.01.2024 in RP No.119/2014-15 (Annex-D), contending that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 purchased the land under registered sale deed dated 12.01.1970 without prior permission under Section 4A PTCL Act and that notices in the Section 136(2) Karnataka Land Revenue Act appeal were improperly served. The Court noted the petitioners' Section 4 and 5 PTCL application was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and their Section 5A appeal is pending before the Deputy Commissioner. Held: (i) purchasers holding title under the 1970 sale deed are entitled to retention of their names in the ownership and cultivator columns of the revenue records, subject to the outcome of the pending Section 5A appeal; (ii) alleged procedural lapses in service of notices are inconsequential given the pendency of the PTCL appeal, and no relief is warranted on that ground; (iii) nothing in the order restrains the petitioners from independently pursuing the pending Section 5A appeal. Writ petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:284 WP No. 20769 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.20769 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI GURUMURTHY S/O LATE YALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶9

SMT.YALLAMMA D/O LATE YALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶10

SRI.KRISHNA S/O LATE YALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT.RENUKA D/O LATE YALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶13

SMT.MUNIYAMMA D/O LATE YALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶14

SMT.LAKSHMI D/O LATE YALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶15

ALL ARE R/AT NO.442 2^ND STAGE, ULLAL POST SONNENAHALLI

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:284 WP No. 20769 of 2024

¶18

MARUTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 095 (PETITIONER NO.1 - SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED ANY BENEFIT)

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P N, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT K.G.ROAD BENGALURU 560009

¶23

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION KANDHAYA BHAVANA K G ROAD

¶24

BENGALURU - 560 009

¶25

THE TAHASILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK KANDHAYA BHAVANA K G ROAD

¶26

BENGALURU - 560 009

¶27

SRI.RAMASWAMY S/O LATE GIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶28

SRI.KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE GIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶29

RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 ARE R/AT KULUMEPALYA JIGANI HOBLI

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:284 WP No. 20769 of 2024

¶32

ANEKAL TALUK - 562 106 BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT 562106

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.3)

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DTD 2.01.2024 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DTD 2.01.2024 PASSED IN RP NO.119/2014-15 (ANNX-D) R-1 AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL ARBITRARY AND IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY HAS BEEN INFRINGED DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO GRANT ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS CONSEQUENT UPON QUASHING THE ORDER AT ANNX-D AND ETC.

¶36

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

This captioned writ petition is filed by the legal heirs of original grantee, who are asserting their title, though the original grantee has sold the petition land under the registered sale deed dated 12.01.1970.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterating the grounds has vehemently argued and

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:284 WP No. 20769 of 2024

¶42

contend that respondent No.4 has purchased the property without obtaining prior permission from respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner under Section 4A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'PTCL Act'). The grounds relating to violation of the provisions of the 'PTCL Act' cannot be looked into in the mutation proceedings.

¶43

Upon hearing the submissions of both learned counsel, it is fairly admitted that the petitioners herein had filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ("PTCL Act"), seeking restoration of the disputed lands. It is also an undisputed fact that the said application was rejected by Respondent No.2 – the Assistant Commissioner. Subsequently, the petitioners have preferred an appeal under Section 5A of the PTCL Act, and the matter is presently pending adjudication before Respondent No.1 –

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:284 WP No. 20769 of 2024

¶46

the Deputy Commissioner. This sequence of events establishes that the statutory remedies provided under the PTCL Act are actively being pursued by the petitioners.

¶47

Considering this factual matrix, this Court is of the view that if the private respondents have acquired title to the lands in question under the registered sale deed dated 12.01.1970, they are entitled to retain their names in both the ownership column and the cultivator’s column in the revenue records. However, this entitlement is not absolute and will remain subject to the outcome of the appeal pending before Respondent No.1 – the Deputy Commissioner, under Section 5A of the PTCL Act. This Court emphasizes that any decision in the pending appeal will have a direct bearing on the rights and claims of both parties and must be addressed within the framework of the PTCL Act.

¶48

In light of the above, this Court finds it unnecessary to delve into the question of whether Respondent No.1 – the Deputy Commissioner, while

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:284 WP No. 20769 of 2024

¶51

deciding the appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, had properly verified whether notices were duly served on the petitioners. Even assuming there were procedural lapses in the service of notices, such issues are rendered inconsequential given the pendency of the appeal under the PTCL Act. The core issue is the determination of rights under the PTCL Act, which is currently under active consideration. Therefore, this Court does not deem it appropriate to grant any relief to the petitioners on this ground, as it would neither serve

¶52

the ends of justice nor address the substantive issue of restoration under the PTCL Act.

¶53

It is clarified that nothing in this order shall hinder or restrict the petitioners from independently pursuing the appeal currently pending before Respondent No.1 – the Deputy Commissioner, under Section 5A of the PTCL Act.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:284 WP No. 20769 of 2024

¶56

In view of the observations made supra, this Court

¶57

is of the view that the writ petition is liable to be

¶58

dismissed.

¶59

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶60