Smt. Eramma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

SMT. VENKATESHAMMA D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS BEHIND SLS TILES FACTORY SULIBELE ROAD DEVANAHALLI TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 100

¶23

SMT. BHAGYAMMA D/O. LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA CHOKKAHALLI VILLAGE CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT PIN - 562 103

¶24

SMT. MANJULA D/O. LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS BAICHAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 100 PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SHANTHA J. PAI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, W/O JAGANNATH V.PAI, 'PARISHRAM', NO.46/52, 10TH A MAIN, 1ST BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011

¶25

…PETITIONERS

¶26

(BY SRI RAJADITHYA SADASIVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT DEVANAHALLI TALUK

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:7122-DB RP No. 251 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN - 562 100

¶33

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA - 561 203

¶34

THE TAHSILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK DEVANAHALLI - 562 100

¶35

SMT MALAMMA W/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT. CHANNAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN - 562 100

¶36

SMT. ANJINAMMA D/O LATE. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT CHANNAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN - 562 135

¶37

SRI MUKTHAR AHMED KHAN S/O. LATE BASHEER KHAN NO.88/11, 2^ND CROSS COLES PARK, FRAZER TOWN BENGALURU - 560 005

¶38

SRI B. NAGARAJ S/O. BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS SUDDAGUNTEPALYA K.R. PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK PIN - 560 036

¶39

SRI JAYARAM S/O. CHIKKAKEMPAIAH

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:7122-DB RP No. 251 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS GOREGUNTEPALYA JARAKABANDEKAVAL YESHWANTPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK PIN - 560 064

¶44

SRI RAJANNA S/O. LATE HUCHAPPANAVARA SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶45

SRI NARAYANASWAMY S/O. LATE HUCHAPPANAVARA SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶46

SRI. RAMACHANDRA S/O. LATE DYAVANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶47

RESPONDENT No.9 TO 11 ARE R/AT. CHANNAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK PIN - 562 100

¶48

…RESPONDENTS

¶49

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA FOR R-1 TO 3 SRI CHANDRASHEKAR L., ADVOCATE FOR R-11 & RESPONDENTS No.6 & 10 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶50

THE REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL IN WA NO.153/2025 AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2025 IN W.P. 15158/2019 AND W.P. NO.15162/2019 SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE 1^ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.03.2019 IN LND/SC-ST/33/2017-18 AND LND/SC-ST/57/2017-18 AND UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE 2^ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.04.2016 IN PTCL (DEV) 31/2012-13 & ETC.

¶51

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶52

5 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:7122-DB RP No. 251 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶56

ORAL ORDER

¶57

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶58

The review petitioners have filed the present review petition seeking review of the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by this court in Writ Appeal No.153/2025 (SC-ST). The review petitioners had preferred the said appeal challenging an order dated 06.01.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.15158/2019, which, in turn, was filed assailing the order dated 29.03.2019 passed by respondent No. 1 [ Deputy Commissioner ], setting aside the order dated 06.04.2016 passed by respondent No. 2 [ Assistant Commissioner ].

¶59

The review petitioners were essentially aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner setting aside the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 06.04.2016, whereby the subject land [land measuring 3 acres in Survey No.6 (New Survey No.51) situated in Agalakote Village, Channarayapatna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk] was granted to one Munivenkatappa – who belongs to the Scheduled Caste – on 01.02.1965. It is stated that he had sold the

¶60

6 -

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:7122-DB RP No. 251 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

subject land in favour of the grandfather of respondent No.11 by a registered sale deed dated 12.11.1965.

¶64

The review petitioners submitted an application to annul the alleged alienation, which was permitted by the Assistant Commissioner in terms of the order dated 06.04.2016. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of delay. This was in the context of the fact that the land was alienated on 12.11.1965, and the writ petitioners attempted to challenge the alienation in 2014, after the original grantee had passed away.

¶65

The review petitioners appealed the said decision in W.A No.153/2025 (SC-ST). However, this court found no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and accordingly, dismissed the writ appeal by the order dated 08.04.2025, the review of which is sought in the present review petition.

¶66

The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners submits that the said order was passed on the assumption that the sale deed dated 12.11.1965, on the basis of which the private respondents were claiming rights over the subject land, was

¶67

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:7122-DB RP No. 251 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

genuine and valid. He submits that apart from the contention that the alienation of the subject lands was invalid by virtue of Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [ PTCL Act ], the petitioners had also challenged the validity of the sale deed dated 12.11.1965. The learned counsel contends that the said sale deed is fabricated and, therefore, no rights can be claimed under the said sale deed. He also submits that the question, whether the sale deed is valid or fabricated is a matter of dispute pending before the Civil Court. He, accordingly, prays that the order be reviewed to consider the question whether the sale deed is valid or fabricated.

¶70

A plain reading of the order dated 08.04.2025, which is under review, indicates that this court has not examined the question whether the sale deed dated 12.11.1965, whereby the original grantee is stated to have sold the subject land in favour of the grandfather of respondent No.11, is genuine or not. The order dated 06.01.2025 dismissing Writ Petition No.15158/2019, as well as the order dated 08.04.2025 rejecting the writ appeal, are premised on the assumption that the sale deed dated 12.11.1965 is

¶71

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:7122-DB RP No. 251 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

genuine and the original grantee had alienated the property by virtue of the sale deed. Accordingly, the decisions rendered by this court and the revenue authorities cannot be construed as dispositive of any question regarding the genuineness of the sale deed dated 12.11.1965. Neither the authorities nor this court has examined the said question. The question of whether the sale deed is valid or genuine is a disputed fact. It is not apposite to examine the said question in these proceedings.

¶74

We, accordingly, dispose of the present review petition by clarifying that the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by this court in Writ Appeal No.153/2025 (SC-ST), as well as the order dated 06.01.2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 15158/2019, cannot be read to mean that this court has accepted the genuineness of the sale deed dated 12.11.1965. Obviously, if the said sale deed is determined to be fabricated or invalid in any civil proceedings, the vendees can claim no right to the subject land by virtue of the said conveyance.

¶75