Allowed¶87

Vasanthaiah S/O Late Muniswamy Gowda v. Hanumantha Bhovi Since Dead by Lrs

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2026RSA/1692/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA 1692/2009, High Court of Karnataka, S. Vishwajith Shetty J, 07.01.2026. Granted land; non-alienation clause; Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act 1978 Sections 4 and 5; resumption and restitution of granted lands; Assistant Commissioner's exclusive jurisdiction; Civil Court cannot order resumption under Section 5; permanent injunction suit O.S.No.262/1999 KGF; sale by original grantee to Kanakamma; substantial question of law answered in affirmative; first appellate judgment set aside, trial decree confirmed; Kolar/Bangarpet, Mavahalli village.

What did the court decide?

Regular second appeal allowed; judgment and decree dated 21.10.2009 in RA No.273/2002 set aside; judgment and decree dated 29.10.2002 of the I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), KGF decreeing the suit of the appellants confirmed. ¶87

Vasanthaiah S/O Late Muniswamy Gowda Vs Hanumantha Bhovi Since Dead by Lrs — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶87

Issue for consideration

Whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in holding that the land in question was granted land with a non-alienation clause, that it could not have been alienated within the non-alienation period, and that such transfer was null and void in terms of Section 4 of the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act, 1978.

¶50

Court's answer

It is nobody's case that the sale of the granted land by the original grantee (PW2) in favour of Smt. Kanakamma was hit by Section 4 of the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act or was thereby null and void; hence the First Appellate Court had no basis to invoke the Act.

¶80

Ratio / Principle

Only the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner is the competent officer empowered to act under Section 5 of the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act where a transfer of granted land is found hit by Section 4; the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to pass any orders as provided under Section 5 of the Act, even if defendants were presumed to have raised such a contention.

¶80

Key takeaways

No such PTCL contention was raised by the defendants and no issue was framed by the Trial Court; the First Appellate Court nevertheless concluded that the sale violated the Act and ordered resumption and surrender of possession to the State Government — an approach that is illegal and perverse.ratio¶86
From the oral evidence of PW1 to PW3 and the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the plaintiffs (Ex.P1 to P10), the plaintiffs had proved the title and possession of the suit schedule property.ratio¶70
The substantial question of law framed at admission is answered in the affirmative; the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in RA No.273/2002 is not sustainable.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal (S.100 CPC) against the Fast Track Court, KGF's decree in RA No.273/2002, which had set aside the trial court's injunction decree in O.S.No.262/1999 solely on the ground that the plaintiffs' purchase from the original grantee offended Section 4 of the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act, 1978, and had directed surrender of possession to the State Government. Held: (i) it was nobody's case that the sale attracted Section 4 or was null and void; (ii) only the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner may act under Section 5 of the PTCL Act, and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to pass orders under Section 5; (iii) no such plea was raised by defendants and no issue was framed by the Trial Court, making the Appellate Court's approach illegal and perverse. Substantial question of law answered in the affirmative; appeal allowed and the trial court's decree confirming the plaintiffs' proved title and possession restored.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:1192 RSA No. 1692 of 2009

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1692 OF 2009 (INJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

VASANTHAIAH S/O LATE MUNISWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.

¶8

M.V. KUMAR S/O VASANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶9

M.V. MANJUNATH S/O VASANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶10

M.V. RAGHU S/O VSANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.

¶11

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

ALL ARE RESPONDENTS BY THEIR GPA HOLDER N. PRASAD AGED 48 YEARS S/O NARAYANAGOWDA R/A MAVAHALLI VILLAGE ROBERTSONPEHOBLI BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SMT. CHARISHMA, ADV., FOR SRI L. VENKATARAMA REDDY, ADV.)

¶15

AND:

¶16

HANUMANTHA BHOVI SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶17

a) CHANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:1192 RSA No. 1692 of 2009

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

b) SRINIVAS

¶22

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

¶23

c) RAMESH AGED AOBUT 30 YEARS.

¶24

d) SHIVAPPA AGED AOBUT 27 YEARS.

¶25

e) SURESH

¶26

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.

¶27

No.(a) IS THE WIFE AND (b) TO (e) ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE HANUMANTHA BHOVI AND ALL ARE RESIDING AT SAMPANGIRAMAPURA MARAGAL CHIKKANKANDAHALLI POST BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.

¶28

SUBHANNA BHAVI

¶29

S/O YELLANNA BHAVI R/AT SE\AMPANGIRAMAPURA MARGAL, CHIKKANAHALLI POST TALUK BANGARPET, DIST: KOLAR - 563 101.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI T. SRINIVASAN, ADV. FOR R-1(A-E); V/O DTD:21.08.2017 APPEAL AGAINST R-2 IS ABATED)

¶32

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 21.10.2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.273/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESITING OFFICER FAST TRACK COURT, KGF, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED29.10.2002 PASSED IN OS.NO.262/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.),K.G.F.

¶33

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:1192 RSA No. 1692 of 2009

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶38

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶39

This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC is filed with a prayer to set aside the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2009 passed in R.A.No.270/2002 by the Fast Track Court, KGF, Kolar District.

¶40

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶41

Suit in O.S.No.262/1999 was filed by the appellants herein before the jurisdictional Civil Court seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.

¶42

It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property was granted in favour of one Gullappa, and subsequently he had sold the said property in favour of Smt. Kanakamma - wife of plaintiff no.1 and mother of plaintiff nos.2 to 4 under a registered sale deed dated 21.02.1977. Subsequently, the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property were also transferred in the name of Smt. Kanakamma and after survey of the said land, a new survey number was given as Sy. No.180. Survey sketch was also

¶43

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1192 RSA No. 1692 of 2009

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

prepared fixing the actual boundaries of the suit schedule property. After the death of Smt. Kanakamma, plaintiffs had succeeded to the suit schedule property. Defendants who have no right or interest whatsoever over the suit schedule property, were illegally interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property, and it is under these circumstances, they had filed the suit. The defendants had filed their written statement and opposed the suit claim. Before the Trial Court, plaintiffs had examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and got marked ten documents as Ex.P1 to P10. On behalf of defendants, two witnesses were examined as DW1 and DW2 and eight documents were got marked as Ex.D1 to D8. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides had decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 29.10.2022. The First Appellate Court in RA No.273/2002 by judgment and decree dated 21.10.2009 has set-aside the said judgment and decree passed in OS No.262/1999 by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred this regular second appeal.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:1192 RSA No. 1692 of 2009

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

This Court vide order dated 05.10.2010, while admitting this regular second appeal has framed the following substantial question of law for consideration in this appeal:-

¶50

"Whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in holding that the land in question was granted land with a non-alienation clause and therefore could not have been alienated within the non-alienation period and that such transfer was mull and void in terms of Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978?"

¶51

Learned counsel for the appellants having reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum submits that the Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act. She submits that it is nobodys case that suit schedule property was purchased by Smt. Kanakamma from the original grantee PW2 Goolappa in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act and therefore, the Appellate Court was not justified in passing the impugned judgment and decree.

¶52

Per contra, learned counsel for the

¶53

respondents/defendants has argued in support of the impugned

¶54

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:1192 RSA No. 1692 of 2009

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

judgment and decree. He submits that plaintiffs have failed to prove their title and possession over the suit schedule property before the Trial Court was therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in decreeing the suit. The grant order does not mention the boundaries of the granted land and in the plaint, the boundaries have been given to the suit schedule property based on the survey sketch which is prepared subsequently. The grant of two acres of land made in favour of the father of the defendant No.1 is also included in the suit schedule property. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has erred in decreeing the suit. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the second appeal.

¶57

Respondents/defendants have filed written statement in OS No.262/1999 denying the grant made in favour of Gullappa and the sale of the granted land by the grantee in favour of Smt. Kanakamma. It is further contented that father of defendant No.1 was granted land in Sy.No.92 of Mavahalli Village to the extent of land measuring 2 acres. Defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the said land. It is alleged that plaintiffs have claimed aforesaid extent of 2 acres of land in the

¶58

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:1192 RSA No. 1692 of 2009

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

suit and an attempt is made to dispossess the defendants from the suit schedule property. The Trial Court based on the rival

¶62

pleadings had framed four issues, which read as follows:-

¶63

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that they are in lawful Possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?

¶64

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought for?

¶65

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought for?

¶66

4. To what order or decree?"

¶67

In support of plaintiffs' case, three witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW3 and ten documents were got marked as Ex.P1 to P10. PW1/Prasad is the power of attorney of plaintiffs. PW2 is the vendor of suit schedule property and this witness has stated that suit schedule property was allotted to him and he was in possession of the property and he has also admitted the Sale Deed executed in favour of Smt. Kannakamma in respect of the suit schedule property. Ex.P3 is the grant certificate dated 06.06.1978 under which the suit schedule property was granted to Gullappa and Ex.P2 is the

¶68

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:1192 RSA No. 1692 of 2009

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

registered Sale Deed executed by PW2 in favour of Smt. Kanakamma, wife of plaintiff No.1 and mother of the other plaintiffs. Ex.P4 is the mutation extract and Ex.P10 is the survey sketch of the suit schedule property under which the boundary of the properties which were purchased by the plaintiffs under registered Sale Deed Ex.P2 from PW2. From the oral evidence of PW1 to PW3 and the documentary evidence that was produced on behalf of the plaintiffs, it is very clear that plaintiffs had proved the title and possession of the suit schedule property.

¶71

On behalf of the defendants, two witnesses were examined as DW1 and DW2 and eight documents were got marked as Ex.D1 to D8. Though it was contented on behalf of defendants that 2 acres of land in Sy.No.92 of Mavahalli Village was allotted to the father of defendant No.1, no such document was produced before the Trial Court to prove such grant. DW1 has pleaded ignorance about the boundary of the suit schedule property and also has pleaded his ignorance about the grant of 4 acres of land in Sy.No.92 of Mavahalli Village in favour of Goolappa. Even DW2 has pleaded ignorance of the grant made

¶72

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:1192 RSA No. 1692 of 2009

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

in favour of Goolappa. It is under these circumstances, the Trial Court had decreed the suit.

¶75

The First Appellate Court having upheld that the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property has set-aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court solely on the ground that sale of the suit schedule property made by PW2, who is the original grantee in the present case was hit by Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act) and therefore, the said sale is void and cannot be sustained. It is under these circumstances, the First Appellate Court having set-aside the judgment and decree passed in OS No.262/1999 has directed the plaintiffs to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property to the State Government within two months from the date of the order.

¶76

Section 4 of the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act, provides for prohibition of transfer of granted lands and Section 5 provides for resumption and restitution of granted lands. The Assistant Commissioner, is the competent officer under Section 5 of the

¶77

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:1192 RSA No. 1692 of 2009

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act, who is empowered to take action suo motu or on an application filed by any interested person if he is satisfied that the transfer of any granted land is null and void under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act, in the said event, he is empowered to take possession of such land after evicting all persons thereof in the manner known to law and restore possession of the said land to the original grantee or his legal heir and if the same is not practicable to restore the land, such land shall be deemed to have vested in the Government free from all encumbrances.

¶80

In the case on hand, it is nobodys case that the sale of the granted land by the original grantee in favour of Smt. Kanakamma was hit by Section 4 of the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act and thereby the same is null and void. A perusal of the provisions of the Act would go to show that it is only the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, who is authorized to take action as provided under Section 5 of the said Act, in the event, if it is found that the transfer of granted land is hit by Section 4 of the Act. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to pass any orders as provided under Section 5 of the Act, even in the event, if it

¶81

11 -

¶82

NC: 2026:KHC:1192 RSA No. 1692 of 2009

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

is presumed that defendants have raised such a contention in their written statement.

¶85

In the case on hand, as stated earlier, no such contention

¶86

was raised by defendants and no issue was framed by the Trial Court. However, the Appellate Court after having arrived at a conclusion that the suit schedule property was sold by the grantee (PW2) in favour of Smt. Kanakamma in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka SC/ST (PTCL) Act has proceeded to order resumption of the land and has directed the plaintiffs to hand over the possession of the suit schedule property to the State Government. This approach of the Appellate Court is illegal and perverse. Under the circumstances, the substantial question of law framed by this Court is answered in the affirmative. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in RA No.273/2002 is therefore, not sustainable. Accordingly, the following order:-

¶87

The regular second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 21.10.2009 passed in RA No.273/2002 by the Court of Fast Track Court, KGF, is hereby set-aside and the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2002 passed by the Court of

¶88