Dismissed¶103

Smt.Devamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2026WA/1259/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court writ appeal dismissed; PTCL Act Sections 4 and 5; SC/ST granted land resumption refused; grant to original grantee not established; Saguvali chit 21.05.1952; cultivation certificate record absent; dharkasth demand book interpolation; khadim tenant grant 15.06.1964 Inam Abolition Act; Survey No.92 newly allocated 1962; 4 acres 28 guntas Manchadevanahalli Periyapatna Mysuru; Assistant Commissioner order 01.08.2011 upheld; Deputy Commissioner PTCL 06/2018 order 07.06.2024 upheld; W.P.No.20808/2024 dismissal affirmed; filed under Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act; delay condoned I.A.No.1/2025; no precedent cases cited.

What did the court decide?

Only condonation of delay in filing the appeal (I.A.No.1/2025); no substantive relief granted - the writ appeal was dismissed. ¶103

Smt.Devamma Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Only condonation of delay in filing the appeal (I.A.No.1/2025); no substantive relief granted - the writ appeal was dismissed.

¶103

Issue for consideration

Whether the subject land (Survey No.92, measuring 4 acres 28 guntas, Manchadevanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Periyapatna Taluk, Mysore District) was granted to the original grantee, Sri Hanumantha Naik, on account of his belonging to a depressed class (SC/ST), so that its alienations could be questioned and the land resumed under the PTCL Act.

¶68

Court's answer

On the material on record (absence of any record of the 1952 cultivation certificate relied upon by the appellants, interpolated entries in the dharkasth demand book, the Deputy Commissioner's noting of the 1964 grant to Chikkannanayaka as a khadim tenant, mismatched grant order numbers and the newly allocated survey number), there are ample and good grounds not to accept that the subject land was granted to the original grantee on account of his belonging to the depressed class.

¶98

Ratio / Principle

Application I.A.No.1/2025 allowed and the delay in filing the appeal condoned.

¶54

Key takeaways

In the given facts, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order rejecting the appellants' writ petition, and accordingly dismissed the writ appeal.ratio¶103
Given that no record of the cultivation certificate existed, the certificate reflecting the subject land in Sy.No.92 could not be relied upon and the entries in the dharkasth demand book were found interpolated, the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 01.08.2011 could not be faulted.ratio¶94

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (SC-ST) No. 1259 of 2025 dismissed by Division Bench (Vibhu Bakhru, CJ; C.M. Poonacha, J) on 16.02.2026. The appellants claimed that 4 acres 28 guntas in Survey No.92, Manchadevanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Periyapatna Taluk, Mysore District was granted on 09.08.1951 to Hanumantha Naik, a deceased depressed-class (SC/ST) grantee, with a Saguvali chit dated 21.05.1952, and sought resumption under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka PTCL Act, 1978 after registered sales dated 06.06.2005 (to K. Shankara Narayana Bhatta) and 29.03.2007 (to K.V. Krishna Nair). The Tahsildar's report placed before the Assistant Commissioner found no office record of the 1952 cultivation certificate, traced RTC entries to Chikkannanayaka s/o Hanumanayaka, and detected interpolation/torn pages in the dharkasth demand book; the Deputy Commissioner further recorded that the land was granted to Chikkannanayaka as a khadim tenant by order dated 15.06.1964 (A2OR/356/1963-64) of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Inam Abolition Act, Mysore Division, with title deed endorsement dated 08.12.1964, that grant order numbers did not match, and that Survey No.92 was newly allocated per the survey dated 21.06.1962. Holding that the grant to the original grantee as a depressed-class member was not established, the Court held the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 01.08.2011 could not be faulted, found no grounds to interfere with the Single Judge's order dated 13.12.2024 in W.P.No.20808/2024(SCST) (NC:2024:KHC:51803), condoned the filing delay via I.A.No.1/2025, and dismissed the appeal.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:10401-DB WA No. 1259 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1259 OF 2025 (SC-ST)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. DEVAMMA

¶11

W/O LATE HANUMANTHANAYAKA

¶12

AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS

¶13

RES/AT MANCHADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE

¶14

KASABA HOBALI PERIYAPATTANA TALUK

¶15

MYSURU DISTRICT - 577 109

¶16

SRI SUNDAR

¶17

S/O JAWAHAR NAYAKA

¶18

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶19

RES/AT MANCHADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE

¶20

Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶21

KASABA HOBALI

¶22

PERIYAPATTANA TALUK

¶23

MYSURU DISTRICT - 577 109

¶24

(BY SRI KRISHNAMOORTHY D., ADVOCATE)

¶25

…APPELLANTS

¶26

AND:

¶27

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶28

REP/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001

¶29

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:10401-DB WA No. 1259 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU - 570 001

¶32

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HUNSUR SUB DIVISION HUNSUR MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 108

¶33

THE TAHASILDAR PERIYAPATTANA TALUK PERIYAPATTANA MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 107

¶34

K. SHANKARANARAYANA BHATTA S/O K. VENKATRAMANA BHATTA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RES/AT KAMBIBANYA VILLAGE SHUNTIKOPPA HOBALI SOMAVARPETE TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 231

¶35

SMT. C.K. KATHYAYINI W/O LATE KANNAN NAYAR AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS RES/AT CHERALA SRIMANGALA VILLAGE SHUNTIKOPPA HOBALI SOMAVARPETE TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 231

¶36

SMT. JANAKI D/O LATE K.V. KRISHNAN NAYAR AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RES/AT CHERALA SRIMANGALA VILLAGE SHUNTIKOPPA HOBALI

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:10401-DB WA No. 1259 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

SOMAVARPETE TALUK

¶41

KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 231

¶42

SMT. NALINA D/O LATE K.V. KRISHNAN NAYAR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RES/AT CHERALA SRIMANGALA VILLAGE SHUNTIKOPPA HOBALI SOMAVARPETE TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 231

¶43

SURESH BABU

¶44

S/O LATE K.V. KRISHNA NAYAR AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RES/AT CHERALA SRIMANGALA VILLAGE SHRUNIKOPPA HOBALI SOMAVARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 231

¶45

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO 4)

¶46

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.20808/2024 (SC-ST) DATED 13/12/2024 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL.

¶47

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

¶48

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:10401-DB WA No. 1259 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶51

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶52

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

¶53

For the reasons stated in the application—I.A.No.1/2025, the

¶54

same is allowed, and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶55

The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an

¶56

order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.20808/2024(SCST) [ impugned order ]¹ .

¶57

The appellants had filed the said writ petition, inter-alia , praying as under:

¶58

"a) Issue a writ of certiorari and order to quash the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur Sub-Division, Hunsur in case No.PTCL 25/2007-08 dated 01.08.2011 as per Annexure 'E';

¶59

b) Further to issue writ of certiorari and order to quash the order dated 07.06.2024 passed in PTCL Appeal No.6/2018 by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, Mysore as per Annexure 'J';

¶60

c) Issue the order to allow the petition filed by the petitioner in PTCL No.25/2007-08 and to declare that the sale deeds executed by the petitioner in

¶61

1 NC:2024:KHC:51803

¶62

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10401-DB WA No. 1259 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

favour of Respondent No.5 as per Annexure 'C' sale deed dated 06.06.2005 and further the sale deed executed by the respondent No.6 as per Annexure 'D' sale deed dated 29.03.2007;

¶65

d) Issue any order or direction or writ as deemed fit to be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case by allowing the above writ petition with exemplary cost in the interest of justice and equity."

¶66

The learned Single Judge found no error in the orders of respondent No.3-the Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.2-the Deputy Commissioner, which were impugned in the writ petition and, accordingly, dismissed the petition.

¶67

The dispute relates to the appellants' claim in respect of land measuring 4 acres 28 guntas falling in Survey No.92 of Manchadevanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Periyapatna Taluk, Mysore District [ subject land ].

¶68

The appellants assert that the subject land was granted on 09.08.1951 and a Saguvali chit dated 21.05.1952 issued in favour of Sri Hanumantha Naik [ original grantee ], who is now deceased, and was the husband of appellant No.1 and the father of appellant No.2. The appellants further claim that Sri Hanumantha Naik belonged to a depressed class(SC-ST).

¶69

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:10401-DB WA No. 1259 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

The appellants claim that Saguvali Chit in respect of the subject land was issued on 21.05.1952 in favour of the original grantee. The appellants claim that the name of appellant No.1 was entered in the RTC records for the year 1990-91, as the original grantee had expired. She states that after the demise of the original grantee, the subject land was sold under the registered sale deed dated 06.06.2005 in favour of Sri. K. Shankara Narayana Bhatta. The appellants also claim that the said Sri.K.Shankara Narayana Bhatta sold the subject land under the registered sale deed dated 29.03.2007 in favour of Sri.K.V.Krishna Nair.

¶73

The appellants relying on Section 4 and 5 of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [ PTCL Act ], approached the Assistant Commissioner for resumption of the subject land (PTCL 25/200708).

¶74

The said application was contested by the vendees (K.Shankara Narayana Bhatta and K.V.Krishna Nair) who had purchased the subject land under the registered sale deeds as noted above. They disputed the caste certificate issued to the

¶75

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:10401-DB WA No. 1259 of 2025

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

appellants. They have also denied that the subject land was granted to the original grantee as he belonged to a scheduled caste.

¶78

The concerned Tahsildar (respondent No.4) submitted a report, which was considered by the Assistant Commissioner. The relevant extracts of the said report, as noted in the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 01.08.2011, are set out below.

¶79

"There are no documents/files available from our office regarding the previous issuance of a copy of the cultivation certificate for the land of Manchadevanahalli S.No.92 by the applicant Hanumanayaka and this village is an Inam village and on 21-02-1962, the land of Chikkannanayaka Bin Hanumanayaka was surveyed and S.No.92 was newly fixed and the District Surveyors gave final approval on 06-06-1963. However, the fact that S.No.92 was recorded in the cultivation certificate submitted by the applicant in the year 1952 is completely suspicious.

¶80

All the available handwritten cadastres from 196970 to 2000-01 regarding Manchadevanahalli S.No.92 were examined and it was found that in 1969-70 Chikkannanayaka bin. Hanumanayaka was found to have inherited 4-28 acres of land. Later, in the R.T.C. of this survey number, shown Jayamma 2-4 acres was recorded from 1974-75 to 78-79. The R.T.C. of 1980-81 was examined and an account was registered in the name of Hanumanayaka S/o Hanumanayaka, which is the R.T.C. In column 10, the statement "Land measuring 2-14 in area as per M.R.1 5/80-81" is found to have been recorded. Later, in the year 1990-91, the account was changed to the name of Hanumanayaka's wife, Mrs. Devamma, as per

¶81

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:10401-DB WA No. 1259 of 2025

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

M.R.03/90-91 and the RTC record will continue till the said year.

¶84

On examining the Dharkasth demand, it was found that the year 1956-57 was entered as per serial number 35 on page 65 of the said book. However, on a detailed examination of the demand book, it was found that the then official had signed it after serial number 34, leaving some space. Using that space, he entered serial number 35 and entered G.D.R.27/51-52 dated 21-05-1952 and corrected the serial number by changing serial number 38 to 39. 39 has been changed to 40, and the 35, 36, 37 order comes between 35.

¶85

The numbers have been entered. The edges of the sheet where the said entry should have been found to have been torn off, and on the next page of this book, serial numbers 40, 41 have been torn off."

¶86

In view of the aforesaid report, the Assistant Commissioner

¶87

concluded that the subject land was not a sanctioned land and therefore its alienation could not be questioned under the PTCL Act.

¶88

The appellants preferred an appeal (PTCL 10/2011-12) before the Deputy Commissioner, which was rejected by an order dated 17.01.2012, for want of jurisdiction.

¶89

The appellants challenged the Deputy Commissioner's Order dated 17.01.2012 by way of writ petitions being W.P.No.4981/2012 and W.P.No.27853/2012 (SC/ST). The court

¶90

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:10401-DB WA No. 1259 of 2025

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

allowed the said petitions by an order dated 01.03.2018 and restored the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner.

¶93

Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the appeal (PTCL 06/2018) by an order dated 07.06.2024. The appellants challenged the said order in W.P. No. 20808/2024, which was dismissed by the impugned order.

¶94

As noted above, the Assistant Commissioner had held that the grant of land in favour of the original grantee was not established. There was no evidence to establish that the subject land was granted to the original grantee on account of his belonging to a depressed class. There was no record of the cultivation certificate in respect of the land falling under Survey No.92, which was relied upon by the appellants. Thus, the cultivation certificate reflecting the subject land in Sy.No.92 could not be relied upon. The entries made in the dharkasth demand book were found to have been interpolated. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 01.08.2011 could not be faulted.

¶95

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:10401-DB WA No. 1259 of 2025

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

The Deputy Commissioner also examined the documents and considered the rival contentions. The Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 07.06.2024, noted that the subject land was granted to Chikkannanayaka S/o Hanumanayaka, by the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Inam Abolition Act, Mysore Division, by an order dated 15.06.1964 (A2OR/356/1963-64), as a khadim tenant and by issuing a title deed through an endorsement dated 08.12.1964. The Deputy Commissioner further noted that the appellants had not produced any document to establish that the original grantee was granted the land in Survey No.92. It was noted that the grant order number entered in the cultivation certificate, which was relied upon by the appellants, and the grant order number entered in the copy of the distribution and demand slips also did not match. Importantly, Survey No. 92 was a newly allocated Survey No. as per the survey copy dated 21.06.1962.

¶98

It is apparent from the above, there are ample and good grounds not to accept that the subject land was granted to the original grantee on account of him belonging to the depressed class. In the given facts, we find no grounds to interfere with the

¶99