IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK.S.KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO.60483 OF 2016 (SC/ST)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI MUNNAIAH
S/O. LATE LACHAPPA,
AGE : 48 YEARS,

2. SRI ESHWARAPPA
S/O LATE GUNAPPA @ MUNIYAPPA
AGE: 31 YEARS

3. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGE: 63 YEARS

4. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
D/O SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA
W/O SRI NAGRAJ
AGE: 38 YEARS
PETITIONER NOS 1 TO 4 ARE,
R/AT: MEENUNKUNTE VILLAGE,
DODDAJALA POST, JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK.
5. SMT. KALAVATHI
D/O. SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA,
W/O. SRI. AVALAPPA,
AGE: 36 YEARS
R/AT NO. 301, GEDDALAHALLI,
RMV 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE -560 094.
 2

6. SMT. NARAYANAMMA
D/O. SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA,
W/O. SRI. NARAYANA MURTHY,
AGE :34 YEARS
R/AT MALLUR VILLAGE,
JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI,
SHIDLIGHATTA TALUK,.
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

7. SRI. MUNIKRISHNA
S/O. SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGE: 32 YEARS
R/AT: MEENUNKUNTE VILLAGE,
DODDAJALA POST, JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK.

8. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA
D/O. LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
W/O. SRI. VENKATESH,
AGE :34 YEARS
R/AT: HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
BOODHIGERE POST,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

9. SRI MUNIKRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGE: 33 YEARS
R/AT MEENUNKUNTE VILLAGE,
DODDAJALA POST, JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK.

10. SRI RAMESH

S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGE: 23 YEARS
R/AT MEENUNKUNTE VILLAGE,
DODDAJALA POST, JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK.
 3

11. SMT PAVITRA

D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGE: 24 YEARS
R/AT MEENUNKUNTE VILLAGE,
DODDAJALA POST, JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK.

12. SMT AKKAYAMMA D/O LATE KONDAPPA,

W/O LATE NAGAPPA,
AGE :78 YEARS
R/AT MEENUNKUNTE VILLAGE,
DODDAJALA POST, JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK.

13. SMT GUNNAMMA D/O LATE KONDAPPA,

W/O LATE MUNIPAPIAH
AGE : 75 YEARS
R/AT MEENUNKUNTE VILLAGE,
DODDAJALA POST, JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA PRASAD B, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE DISTRICT,
K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE SUB-DIVISION,
BANGALORE - 560 025.

3. SRI BIMAL KUMAR GOENKA

S/O LATE RADHE MOHANA GOENKA,
PARTNER OF M/S HAMLET CAMP WEL
HOUSE NO.11, TUMKUR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 002.
 4

4. SRI HARISH S/O LATE GUNNAPPA

AGED: 32 YEARS
MINUKUNTE HOSUR
JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 560 064.

5. SRI MUNIRAJU S/O LATE GUNNAPPA

AGE: 35 YEARS
MINUKUNTE HOSUR
JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORHT TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 560 064.

6. SMT. MANJULA W/O MUNIRAJU

D/O LATE GUNNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
GUNDLA GURKEE VILLAGE
HARIBANDE POST
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK &
DISTRICT - 562 101.

7. SMT. ANITHA W/O ANJANAPPA

D/O LATE GUNNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
SANDHENAHALLI VILLAGE
KUMBALAHALLI POST
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 136.

8. SMT. AKKAYYAMMA
W/O MUNIKADIRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
GEDDALAHALLI WARD
NAGASHETTYHALLI
BANGALORE CITY-560 094.

9. SRI HONNURAPPA
S/O LATE LACHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
 5

MINUKUNTE HOSUR
DODDAJALA POST
JALA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560 064.

10. SMT MUNIYAMMA

W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
DODDAMARALI VILLAGE
NANDI HOBLI - 562 130
CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK & DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHESHU, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. MANMOHAN P N, ADV. FOR R3
SRI VISHWANATH R HEGDE, ADV. FOR R4-10)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN
PROCEEDINGS BY THE R-2 DTD. 6.4.2015 VIDE
ANNEX-L AND ETC.,

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR

PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated

06.04.2015 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-L

and also order dated 07.10.2016 passed by respondent

No.1 vide Annexure-M, filed this writ petition.

 6

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition

are that:

The land bearing survey No.45 (Old survey No.3)

was granted in favour of Sri A.K. Konda under the grant

order dated 31.12.1927 with non-alienation clause. The

original grantee died leaving behind the petitioners as his

legal heirs. It is contended that the petitioners have

succeeded the properties and they are in possession and

enjoyment of the same. The petitioners have got

converted the said land into non-agricultural land vide

order dated 05.09.1996 and 09.08.1996. After converting

the said land into non-agricultural land, the petitioners

have sold the said land in favour of respondent No.3 under

the registered sale deeds dated 30.10.1996. The

petitioners filed an application under Section 5 of the

Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for

short 'PTCL Act') alleging that sale deeds dated 30.10.1996

is contrary to Section 4 of the PTCL Act before respondent

No.2. Respondent No.2 after conducting an enquiry

 7

held that sale deeds are in violation of Section 4 of the

PTCL Act and allowed application and declared the

registered sale deeds as null and void and ordered to

restore the land in favour of the petitioners. Respondent

No.3 being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent

No.2 preferred an appeal before respondent No.1.

Respondent No.1 allowed the appeal and set aside the

order passed by respondent No.2. The petitioner No.1 and

respondent No.3 being aggrieved by the order passed by

respondent No.1 preferred W.P.No.24908/2010 connected

with W.P.No.16054/2011. This Court vide order dated

28.01.2013 allowed the writ petitions and remitted the

matter to respondent No.2 for fresh disposal. Respondent

No.2 after remand, dismissed the application filed by the

petitioners on 06.04.2015. The petitioners being aggrieved

by the order passed by respondent No.2 preferred appeal

before the respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 vide order

dated 07.10.2016 dismissed the appeal filed by the

petitioners. Hence, the petitioners filed this writ petition.

 8

3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners,

learned counsel for respondent No.3 and learned HCGP.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that land in question is granted land. Though the

petitioners have executed registered sale deeds in favour

of respondent No.3, sale deeds are in violation of Section 4

of the PTCL Act. He submits that the respondent Nos.1 & 2

without considering the said fact have proceeded to pass

the impugned orders and hence, on these grounds he

prays to allow the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent

No.3 submits that though the land was standing in the

name of A.K. Konda, after his demise, the said property

was transferred in the name of the petitioners. He submits

that petitioners have got converted the land into non

agricultural land vide order dated 05.09.1986 and

09.08.1996. After conversion, the petitioners have sold

the lands under registered sale deed. He further submits

that once if the lands is got converted into non agricultural

 9

lands, the said land does not fall within the definition of

"granted land". He further submits that provisions of PTCL

Act are not applicable to the property in question and he

further submits that respondent Nos.1 & 2 were not

justified in the passing the impugned orders. Hence, on

these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Per contra Learned High Court Government

Pleader adopts the arguments of learned counsel for

respondent No.3.

7. Heard and perused the records and considered

the submission of learned counsel for parties.

8. The land in survey No.45 (old No.3) was

standing in the name of A.K. Konda in the year 1927-28

and he died leaving behind the petitioners as his legal

heirs. That is the year 1996 the petitioners got converted

the said land into non agricultural purpose. After

converting the said land into non agricultural, the

petitioners have sold the said land in favour of respondent

No.3 under the registered sale deeds. On the strength of

 10

registered sale deeds executed by the petitioners, the

name of respondent No.3 was entered in the revenue

records. The petitioners filed an application under Section

5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2007 alleging that sale deeds

are in violation of Section 4 of the of PTCL Act. Respondent

No.2 after holding an enquiry rejected the application on

the ground that the land in question was already converted

into non agricultural land and the provisions of PTCL Act

are not applicable and the respondent No.1 has confirmed

the order passed by the respondent No.3.

9. On 19.05.2021, this Court after hearing the

matter for sometime and considering that there are

conflicting opinions of learned Single Judges of this Court,

which are confirmed by the Division Bench held that the

matter is required to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief

Justice for referring the matter to a full bench on the

following points for reference:

"1. Whether an order of conversion

passed by the Deputy Commissioner, under Section
95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 can
be construed as prior permission granted by the
 11

Government satisfied the requirements under

Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act?
2. Whether any order of conversion
passed by the Deputy Commissioner, under Section
95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 take
away granted land from the purview of the PTCL
Act?
3. Whether the definition of word
'granted land', as found in the PTCL Act, could be
restricted only to agricultural land"?

10. The Hon’ble Full Bench vide order dated

05.07.2021 has answered the reference holding second

issue in affirmative and third issue in negative and held

that once the land is divested, the same ceases to be

"granted land" under the provisions of the PTCL Act.

Therefore, in case of a divested land, the requirement of

obtaining permission under Section 4(2) of the Act does

not arise as permission has to be obtained only in respect

of "granted land" and the land on conversion no longer

remains as "granted land" and further held that an issue

on order of conversion passed by the Deputy

Commissioner under Section 95 of Karnataka Land

Revenue Act, 1964 can be construed as prior permission

 12

by the government satisfying requirements under Section

4(2) of the PTCL Act does not arise in the case of divested

land.

11. Admittedly, in the present case the land was

converted into non agricultural purpose as on the date of

execution of registered sale deeds in favour of respondent

No.3. The said land was divested. Hence, provisions of

PTCL Act are not applicable to divested land. As on the

date of execution of registered sale deeds, the said land

was not fall within the definition of "granted land" as per

Section 3(b) of the PTCL Act. Respondent No.2 was

justified in rejecting an application filed by the petitioners

and respondent No.1 was also justified in confirming the

order passed by respondent No.2. I do not find any

grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly,

the writ petition is dismissed.

SD/-
JUDGE

nms