Once land is converted for non-agricultural use, it loses its status as granted land under the PTCL Act, and proceedings to resume such land are not maintainable.

ORDER :

E.S.INDIRESH, J.

In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the notice dated 26.08.2024, issued by the respondent No.2, and sought for quashing the proceedings in K.SC.ST.PTCL/YLK-36 of 2024 pending consideration before the respondent No.2 (Annexure-Y and X) respectively, inter-alia sought for direction to the respondent No.2 to restrain from proceeding further in K.SC.ST.PTCL/YLK-36 of 2024 (Annexure-Y and X).

2. Relevant facts for the adjudication of this writ petition are that, the petitioners claim that the land bearing Sy.No. 45, measuring 05 acres, 03 guntas situate at Meenukunte Village, Yalahanka Taluk was partitioned by the children of one late Kondappa. Sri Lacchappa, son of late Kondappa and others had executed Sale Agreement dated 13.03.1996 in favour of the petitioner No.1 in respect of 03 acres, 02 guntas. Similarly, Smt. Muniyamma, wife of late Muniyappa and others had executed registered Sale Deed dated 13.03.1996 in favour of the petitioner No.1 in respect of 02 acres, 01 gunta in the said survey number. It is also stated that aforementioned Lachhappa and Smt. Muniyamma had made an application to the Spl. Deputy Commissioner seeking conversion of land in question and pursuant to the same, Spl. Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Bangalore District by Official Memorandum dated 09.08.1996 ordered for conversion of the land in question as per Annexure-A and B respectively. Thereafter, the original owners of the land Lachhppa and Muniyamma executed registered Sale Deed dated 31.01.1996 in favour of petitioner No.1 as per Annexure-C to G respectively. Pursuant to the execution of the registered Sale Deed, the revenue records mutated in favour of petitioner No.1. In the meanwhile, one Munaiah, son of late, Lachhappa i.e. respondent No.3, has filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (herein after referred to as 'PTCL Act') before the respondent No.2, seeking restoration of land in question and the said application came to be allowed by the respondent No.2, on 10.06.2008. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner No.1, has filed an appeal in K.SC.ST.(A) 50 of 2008-09 and Spl. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, by order dated 04.08.2010 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of resumption made by respondent No.2. Similarly, Smt. Muniyamma had filed W.P.No.24908 of 2010 before this court challenging the order passed by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner dated 04.08.2010 and the petitioner No.1 also filed W.P.No.16054 of 2011. This court by order dated 28.01.2013 allowed W.P.No.24908 of 2010 and W.P.No.16054 of 2011 and quashed the order passed by Appellate Authority and remanded the matter to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration. After remand, made by this Court, respondent No.2 by order dated 06.04.2015 dismissed the petition in K.SC.ST No.90/2007-08 and being aggrieved by the same, Smt. Muniyamma has preferred an appeal in SC.ST(A) 9/2015-016 which came to be dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner on 07.10.2016. The said order of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged in W.P.No.60483-84 of 2016 and the said petitions came to be dismissed on 16.12.2021. During the pendency of the said writ petition, question of law was referred to the larger Bench of this Court for consideration with reference made therein and accordingly, Full Bench of this court by order dated 05.07.2021 in W.P.No.60483-84 of 2016 (Annexure-H), held that, once the land is converted for non-agricultural purpose, the land loses its nature of granted land and held that protection of under Section 4 (2) of PTCL Act is not available for the grantees. The