Sri.Muniraju Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED DATED 02.11.2021 ON THE FILE OF R-3 WHICH IS PRODUCED UNDER ANNEXURE-A., ETC.

¶47

IN W.P.No. 3857 OF 2022:

¶48

BETWEEN:

¶49

1 . SRI.N.VENKATARAJU S/O. LATE. NARAYANAPPA, DEAD BY LRS.,

¶50

1(a) SMT. N.VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O LATE VENKATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT No.46, SUBHASHNAGARA COLONY, GORAVIGERE, BANGALORE-560 067.

¶51

1(b) KUM.V.SNEHA.,

¶52

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:999 WP No. 3840 of 2022 C/W WP No. 3857 of 2022

¶53

D/O LATE VENKATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT No.46, SUBHASHNAGARA COLONY, GORAVIGERE, BANGALORE-560 067.

¶54

1(c) SRI.V.PRABHAS, S/O LATE VENKATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT No.46, SUBHASHNAGARA COLONY, GORAVIGERE, BANGALORE-560 067.

¶55

2 . SMT. SAROJA, W/O. LATE. N. NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT GOPALAPURA VILLAGE, (GUMMANAHALLI) 562157, BANGALURU POST, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

¶56

3 . KUM. CHANDINI D/O. LATE. N NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT GOPALAPURA VILLAGE, (GUMMANAHALLI) 562157, BANGALURU POST, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

¶57

4 . SRI. CHANDAN, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS S/O. LATE. NARASIMHAMURTHY R/AT GOPALAPURA VILLAGE, (GUMMANAHALLI) 562157, BANGALURU POST, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

¶58

5 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:999 WP No. 3840 of 2022 C/W WP No. 3857 of 2022

¶60

5 . SRI. MUNIYAPPA,

¶61

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O. LATE. KADARIYAPPA, R/AT GOPALAPURA VILLAGE, (GUMMANAHALLI) 562157, BANGALURU POST, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

¶62

6 . SRI. C MUNIRAJU

¶63

S/O. KADIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT GOPALAPURA VILLAGE, (GUMMANAHALLI) 562157, BANGALURU POST, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK

¶64

…PETITIONERS

¶65

(BY SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT., ADVOCATE)

¶66

AND:

¶67

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY PRINCIPAL REVENUE SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 01.

¶68

2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION, K G ROAD, BANGALORE 09.

¶69

3 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, K G ROAD, BANGALORE 09.

¶70

4 . SRI. L RAVINDRA, S/O. L LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEAS, R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶71

6 -

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:999 WP No. 3840 of 2022 C/W WP No. 3857 of 2022

¶73

JALA HOLI - 562157, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK

¶74

5 . SRI. L MUNISWAMY

¶75

S/O. L LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOLI - 562157, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK

¶76

6 . SRI. L PARTHA

¶77

S/O. L LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOLI - 562157, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK

¶78

7 . SRI. L NAVEEN KUMAR,

¶79

S/O. L LAKSHMAIAH, R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOLI - 562157, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK

¶80

…RESPONDENTS

¶81

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI. T.N.VISHWANATHA., FOR SRI. T.R.GIRISH., ADVOCATE FOR R-4 TO R-7)

¶82

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, QUASH THE ORDER PASSED DATED 02.11.2021 ON THE FILE OF R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ETC.

¶83

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.12.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶84

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:999 WP No. 3840 of 2022 C/W WP No. 3857 of 2022

¶85

CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶86

CAV ORDER

¶87

These petitions are in relation to two extents of 04 acres of lands in Sy.No.119 which were granted by the Government to Chinnappa and Kadirappa.

¶88

On 13.04.1962, the Government granted an extent of 04 acres each in Mahadeva Kodigehalli village, Jala Hobli to Chinnappa and Kadirappa, who belonged to scheduled caste, with a condition that the property should not be alienated for a period of fifteen years.

¶89

However, Chinnappa sold 02 acres in favour of B.T.Shivakumar, minor represented by his mother Kempamma under a registered sale deed and 28.10.1966.

¶90

Chinnappa sold the remaining extent of 02 acres in favour of Gowramma under a sale deed dated 25.11.1966.

¶91

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:999 WP No. 3840 of 2022 C/W WP No. 3857 of 2022

¶92

Thus, in respect of the lands granted in the year 1962, Chinnappa sold the entire extent of 04 acres in the year 1966 itself.

¶93

As far as Kadirappa was concerned, he sold 02 acres in favour of B.T.Vijayashankar who was also a minor represented by his mother Kempamma under a sale deed dated 14.06.1967 and he sold the remaining portion in favour of G.K.Tammanna on 12.06.1969.

¶94

Thus, Kadirappa sold the lands granted to him in the years 1967 and 1969.

¶95

Thus, both the above mentioned lands were sold in contravention of the terms of the grant which prescribed 15 years as a period of alienation.

¶96

It is also stated that thereafter on 12.11.1982, the entire property granted to Kadirappa was sold to Sundar Raj, M.Nataraj and A.P. Sundar Shekhar, who in turn have sold it in favour of Arun Kumar Kanoria and others in the year 1994.

¶97

9 -

¶98

NC: 2025:KHC:999 WP No. 3840 of 2022 C/W WP No. 3857 of 2022

¶99

Similarly, it is also stated in the year 1983, the entire property granted to Chinnappa was sold on 25.06.1983 to Sundar Raj, M.Nataraj and A.P. Sundar Shekhar, and they have in turn also sold it to Arun Kumar Kanoria in the year 1994.

¶100

On 14.02.2001, the legal heirs of Chinnappa initiated proceedings under the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Act/PTCL Act ’ for brevity), for resumption of the land granted to Chinnappa on the ground that the land has been sold in contravention of the terms of the grant.

¶101

Similarly, on 14.02.2003, the legal heirs of Kadirappa also initiated proceedings under the PTCL Act for resumption and restoration.

¶102

In other words, after 22 years and 24 years respectively, after the PTCL Act was enacted in the

¶103

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:999 WP No. 3840 of 2022 C/W WP No. 3857 of 2022

¶104

year 1979, the proceedings were initiated by the legal heirs of Kadirappa and Chinnappa for

¶105

resumption of the lands.

¶106

The Assistant Commissioner accepted the applications and ordered for resumption, the purchasers in turn preferred appeals and the appellate authority, after hearing the parties, by the impugned orders has allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of resumption principally on the ground that the proceedings had been initiated after inordinate delay.

¶107

Being aggrieved, the legal heirs of the grantees are before this Court by way of these writ petitions.

¶108

It is sought to be contended by them that by virtue of the amendment to the PTCL Act, the proceedings initiated for resumption cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation.

¶109

11 -

¶110

NC: 2025:KHC:999 WP No. 3840 of 2022 C/W WP No. 3857 of 2022

¶111

In the written arguments that has been filed by the petitioners, it is sought to be contended that the limitation or delay in invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act cannot be the criteria to determine whether the lands are required to be resumed or not.

¶112

Reliance is sought to be placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Chhedi Lal Yadav¹ , Harishchandra Hegde² and Papaiah³ .

¶113

In the written arguments, the portion of the judgment extracted which was rendered in Harishchandra Hegde , the Apex Court, in fact, stated that an order of resumption is required to be passed with a view to avoid unnecessary delay or protracting the proceedings.

¶114

Similarly, the portion extracted in the written arguments which was been rendered in the case of

¶115

1 Chhedi Lal Yadav and others vs. Hari Kishore Yadav (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others, (2018) 12 SCC 527;

¶116

2 Harishchandra Hegde vs. State of Karnataka, (2004) 9 SCC 780;

¶117

3 Papaiah vs. State of Karnataka, (1996) 10 SCC 533.

¶118

12 -

¶119

NC: 2025:KHC:999 WP No. 3840 of 2022 C/W WP No. 3857 of 2022

¶120

Chhedi Lal Yadav , the Apex Court has in fact stated that the action which was grossly delayed and taken beyond a reasonable time would be incorrect and it is stated that what is reasonable time would determine on the circumstances of each case.

¶121

However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the later judgment i.e., Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi⁴ has held that the delay in invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act would have to be taken within a reasonable time and if not, the application for resumption would have to be rejected.

¶122

Three Division Benches of this Court in

¶123

Smt.M.Manjula⁵ , Smt.Gouramma alias Gangamma⁶ and Smt.Akkayamma’s⁷ cases have

¶124

4 Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and another, (2020) 14 SCC 232;

¶125

“8. ….We have no hesitation in upholding that the present application for restoration of land made by respondent-Rajappa was made after an unreasonably long period and was liable to be dismissed on that ground.”

¶126

5Smt.M.Manjula vs. The Deputy Commissioner and Others – 2024:KHC:51015-DB

¶127

6Smt.Gouramma Alias Gangamma vs. The Deputy Commissioner and Others – 2024:KHCD:10666-DB

¶128

7Smt.Akkayamma vs. The State of Karnataka and Others - 2024:KHC:48227-DB

¶129

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:999 WP No. 3840 of 2022 C/W WP No. 3857 of 2022

¶130

held that if the proceedings for resumption are initiated belatedly, such proceedings are required to be quashed. In fact, in the latest judgment, it is stated that if the proceedings are initiated after twelve years, the doctrine of laches would come into play.

¶131

In light of the aforesaid judgments rendered by the Division Benches of this Court, which are based on the judgment of the Apex Court, the orders of the Deputy Commissioner in annulling the resumption proceedings on the ground that they were initiated after an inordinate delay cannot be found fault with.

¶132

Consequently, there is no merit in these writ petitions and the petitions are therefore dismissed .

¶133

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶134

RK

¶135

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 96

Sri.Muniraju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Muniraju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A Mahesha Vs Principal Secretary

Smt. Sudha Savanur Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Kalpana N Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Threemurthy B T Vs the Commissioner

Smt Leena Udayashankar Vs the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri Dr C v Nayak Vs the Commissioner