-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12

TH

DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS

WRIT PETITION NO.12843 OF 2025(SC-ST)

BETWEEN

SRI S K JAYARAM

S/O LATE D.N. KRISHNAREDDY,

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

R/AT NO.68, DOMMALURU LAYOUT,

H.A.L. MAIN ROAD,

BENGALURU 560 071.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VIGNESHWAR S.SHASTRI., SR. COUNSEL FOR

SMT. AISHWARYA HEGDE M.V., ADVOCATE)

AND

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI,

BANGALORE 560 001

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,

BANGALORE 560 009.

3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION,

KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,

BANGALORE -560001.

R

-2-

4 .

5 .

6 .

7 .

8 .

9 .

THE THASILDAR

BENGALURU EAST TALUK,

K.R. PURAM,

BANGALORE -560036.

SRI. MUNINARAYANAPPA

S/O LATE POOJAPPA T

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.,

SMT. GOWRAMMA

W/O LATE MUNINARAYANAPPA

AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS

SRI. M. NATARAJ

S/O LATE MUNINARAYANAPPA

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

SRI. M. HARISH

S/O LATE MUNINARAYANAPPA

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 8 ARE R/A

KHAJI SONNENAHALLI VILLAGE

BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,

BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560066.

SMT. MANJULA

W/O SRI. M.S. NARAYANASWAMY

D/O LATE MUNINARAYANAPPA

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

R/A AMBEDKAR NAGAR

MULABAGILU TOWN

KOLAR DISTRICT-563131.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HULIGOL., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

SRI. Y.ESHWARAPA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R6 & R5

TO R8

SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)

-3-

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

QUASH ORDER DTD. 24.03.2025 PASSED IN

P.T.C.L.NO.03/2025 BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER /R-2

AS PER ANNX-F CONFIRMING THE ORDER DTD.

30.01.2024 PASSED IN K.SC.ST(BE)NO.153/2009-10

PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER / R-3 AS PER

ANNX-C AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED ON 04.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT

MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS)

The petitioner is seeking to assail the impugned

order passed by the third respondent-Assistant

Commissioner, in proceedings bearing No.K.SC.ST

(BE):153/2009-10 dated 30.01.2024 at Annexure ‘C’

and the order of the Appellate Authority - Deputy

Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, in

-4-

proceedings bearing PTCL No.3/2025 dated

24.03.2025 at Annexure ‘F’.

2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Vigneshwar

S.Shastri, appearing for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner purchased 1 acre 30 guntas of land in

Sy.No.143 of Khaji Sonnenahalli Village, Bidarahall i

Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk from Smt.G.Padmavathi,

under a registered sale deed dated 22.09.1988.

However, the petitioner came to know of an order

passed by the Assistant Commissioner in proceedings

bearing No.K.SC.ST 26/1995-96 invoking Sections 4

and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain

Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PTCL Act’

for short) directing cancellation of the first sale

transaction dated 25.10.1956 under which

Smt.Basamma, W/o Mariyanna had purchased 3 acres

26 guntas of land in Sy.No.143. The petitioner

-5-

derives title through Smt.Basamma. The Assistant

Commissioner had allowed the petition while directing

resumption of the lands and restoration in favour of

the original grantee/or his legal heirs. The Assistant

Commissioner had passed the order on 15.05.1998.

Since the petitioner was not impleaded as a party

respondent in that proceedings, the petitioner filed an

appeal under Section 5A of the PTCL Act, before the

Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, in

Appeal No.SC/ST (A) 30/1998-99. The petitioner also

filed an impleading application in the appeal filed by

Smt.Basamma. Learned Senior Counsel submits that

the impleading application filed by the petitioner in the

appeal filed by Smt.Basamma was rejected by the

Special Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the

petitioner may prosecute and seek redressal of his

grievance in the appeal filed by the petitioner. The

Special Deputy Commissioner thereafter considered

-6-

the appeal filed by the petitioner, allowed the same

and remanded the matter back to the Assistant

Commissioner for fresh consideration, in order to

afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Respondents No.5 to 8 filed W.P.No.42016/2003

calling in question the orders passed by the Specia l

Deputy Commissioner. This Court by order dated

18.11.2008 set aside the order passed by the Specia l

Deputy Commissioner and remanded the matter back

to the special Deputy Commissioner for fresh disposal.

Respondents No.5 to 8, the legal heirs of the original

grantee, not being satisfied by the order passed by

this Court, preferred an intra-Court appeal in

W.A.No.2325/2008 and the Division Bench modified

the order passed by this Court while remanding the

matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh

disposal.

-7-

3. Pursuant to the order of remand, the Assistant

Commissioner passed the impugned order at

Annexure ‘C’ dated 30.01.2024 affirming the earlier

order passed by the same authority in K.SC.ST.

No.26/1995-96 dated 15.05.1998 and cancelled the

registered sale deed dated 22.09.1988 under which

the petitioner herein acquired title over 1 acre 30

guntas of land in Sy.No.143, while further directing

resumption and restoration of the lands in favour of

the original grantee/or his legal heirs. The appea l

preferred by the petitioner before the Deputy

Commissioner was also dismissed by the impugned

order at Annexure ‘F’ dated 24.03.2025.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Vigneshwar

S.Shastri, submitted that the Assistant Commissioner

and the Deputy Commissioner have fallen in error in

passing the impugned orders on the ground that the

findings of the authority have attained finality in the

-8-

proceedings initiated at the hands of Smt.Basamma.

Learned Senior Counsel points out to the order passed

by this Court in W.P.No.42016/2003 where similar

contentions were raised and this Court held that the

decision rendered in the case of Smt. Basamma is

confined to the sale deed executed in favour of

Smt.Basamma and the petitioner is unconcerned with

that sale transaction and therefore, the matter was

remanded back to the Special Deputy Commissioner

to reconsider the case of the petitioner. The Hon’ble

Division Bench, however modified the said order and

remanded the matter back to the Assistant

Commissioner. In this background, it is submitted

that the respondent authorities were required to give

an independent finding insofar as the sale transaction

of the petitioner is concerned and they could not have

fallen back on the earlier orders passed in the case of

Smt.Basamma. Moreover, the petition under Sections

-9-

4 and 5 of the PTCL Act, was filed by the contesting

respondents in the year 1995-96, after a lapse of

nearly 17 years after the Act came into force.

Therefore, the petition was required to be dismissed

on the ground of delay and laches, having regard to

the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

commencing from Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs.

State of Karnataka And Another (2020) 14 SCC

232.

5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri Vikram

Huilgol, appearing for the contesting respondents

submitted that there cannot be diametrically opposite

orders or findings in respect of the same facts. It is

submitted that the decision rendered in the case of

Smt.Basamma includes the land purchased by the

petitioner herein. The petitioner has derived titl e

through Smt.Basamma. It is submitted that the

petitioner cannot deny the fact that Smt.Basamma

-10-

had purchased 3 acres and 26 guntas of land in

Sy.No.143 and out of the said 3 acres and 26 guntas,

the petitioner has subsequently purchased 1 acre and

30 guntas and the title is derived through the sale

transaction of Smt.Basamma. Such being the position,

the findings of the respondent authorities in the case

of Smt.Basamma that 6 acres and 15 guntas of land

were granted in favour of Sri T.Poojappa in the year

1947; that Sri Poojappa belonged to Scheduled Caste

community and after the death of Sri Poojappa, his

widow along with minor sons sold 3 acres and 26

guntas of land in favour of Smt.Basamma under

registered sale deed dated 25.10.1956, in violation of

the conditions of grant and accordingly, the said sale

transaction dated 25.10.1956 was declared void and

cancelled in terms of the provisions of the PTCL Act.

The orders passed by the competent authorities under

the PTCL Act were affirmed at the hands of this Court

-11-

in W.P.No.31871/2000 dated 24.07.2003. Such being

the position, no orders to the contrary can be passed

in favour of the petitioner. The sale deed of

Smt.Basamma includes the property purchased by the

petitioner. Therefore, there cannot be a different

finding in the case of the petitioner, insofar as the

position of law is concerned.

6. In the same vein, the learned Senior Counsel

submits that question of applying the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti

Rama Lakshmi (supra) to the present facts and

circumstances of the case would not arise. It is

submitted that the finding of the authorities have

attained finality at the hands of this Court in

W.P.No.31871/2000, by order dated 24.07.2003, long

before the judgment in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi

was rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

-12-

Therefore, question of applying the said decision to

the facts of this case would not arise.

7. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri Vigneshwar

S.Shastri, for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel

Sri Vikram Huilgol, for the contesting respondents,

learned AGA for the respondent-State and perused the

petition papers.

8. Although it is true that in

W.P.No.31871/2000, where the petitioner herein is

respondent No.5 and I.A.No.1/2003 filed by the

petitioner herein in the said writ petition for

impleadment was considered by this Court and this

Court held that the claim of the writ petitioner therein

and the impleading applicant are in respect of

different properties and therefore, the application for

impleadment was rejected granting liberty to the

petitioner herein to workout his rights in the appeal

-13-

pending before the appellate authority, nevertheless,

this Court is of the considered opinion that there

cannot be divergent opinions in the case of the

petitioner, when compared to that of Smt.Basamma.

Having regard to the position of law as it stood when

the case of Smt.Basamma was decided, this Court has

clearly held that there cannot be any infirmity in the

finding of the respondent authorities. This Court has

held that having regard to the provisions contained in

Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act, the sale transaction

dated 25.10.1956 was held to be in violation of the

conditions of grant. The sale deed dated 25.10.1956

having been voided and the lands purchased under

the said sale deed having been directed to be resumed

and restored in favour of the original grantee/or his

legal heirs, the same would cover the sale transaction

dated 22.09.1988 which was executed in favour of the

petitioner.

-14-

9. The present case stands covered having

regard to the legal maxim nemo dat quod non

habet i.e., no one can transfer a better title than

what he himself possesses. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court, the case of M.Yashwanth Shenoy Vs.

Muniyappa and Others (2016) 1 SCC 657 has

held, while applying the above said legal maxim and

having regard to the provisions of the PTCL Act, that

the first transfer being void for being in violation of

statutory bar and conditions of grant, subsequent

transfers are also void ab initio.

10. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 provides, while

commencing with a non obstante clause,

notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement,

contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land

made either before or after the commencement of the

Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such

land, shall be null and void and no right, title or

-15-

interest in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed

ever to have conveyed by such transfer. The deeming

provision takes care of all the subsequent transactions

following the cancellation of the first sale transaction.

Further, sub-section (1) of Section 5 provides tha t

where the Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that the

transfer of any granted land is null and void under

sub-section (1) of Section 4, he may, by order take

possession of such land after evicting all persons in

possession thereof in such manner as may be

prescribed. Thereafter, the lands will be restored to

the original grantee or his legal heir. That being the

position, the respondent authorities are right in

rejecting the petition and appeal filed by the

petitioner, on the ground that the first sale transaction

of Smt.Basamma has been duly cancelled and such

cancellation has been upheld at the hands of this

-16-

Court. All subsequent transactions are deemed to

have been cancelled.

11. Having regard to the chronology of events,

and having regard to the fact that the sale transaction

of Smt.Basamma, the predecessor-in-title to the

petitioner was duly cancelled and the said declaration

having attained finality at the hands of this Court in

the year 2003, question of applying the decision in

Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi , of the year 2017, to the

facts and circumstances of the present case, would

not arise.

12. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of

the considered opinion that the impugned orders

passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy

Commissioner cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the writ

petition stands dismissed.

-17-

13. In view of the disposal of the writ petition,

pending I.As., stand disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

(R. DEVDAS)

JUDGE

JT/-

CT: JL