Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 767
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V. KAMESWAR RAO, T.M. NADAF, JJ.
Late Thimmaraju Since Deceased by His Legal Heirs Smt. Mallamma - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 924 of 2023
Decided On : 29-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Gopala B.V.
For the Respondents: Saritha Kulkarni, Devhadas, K.S. Anasuyadevi, Siddappa B.M.
Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to decide on disputed heirship, which must be resolved in civil courts following the provisions of the PTCL Act.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 - The order of the Deputy Commissioner regarding land restoration under Section 5 of the Act reaffirmed judicially, emphasizing the jurisdictional limit of revenue authorities in disputed heirship and entitlement to land. (Paras 10, 18)
(B) Jurisdiction - Revenue courts do not have the authority to determine disputed questions of facts such as legal heirship, necessitating resolution before civil courts. (Paras 16, 19)
Facts of the case:
Land granted to multiple heirs in 1956, contested claims by legal heirs regarding rightful ownership and restoration of land under PTCL Act. (Paras 4-6)
Findings of Court:
No interference warranted in the Deputy Commissioner's order as the claims involve disputed facts that must be adjudicated in civil court; petitioners' claims were found to be unsubstantiated. (Paras 8-11)
Issues: Determination of rightful legal heirs and jurisdiction of revenue authorities in disputed claims.
Ratio Decidendi: Courts reaffirmed that revenue officials lack jurisdiction to decide on disputed heirship and appropriate jurisdiction lies with civil courts for adjudicating entitlement to property. (Paras 17-19)
Result: Writ appeal dismissed as devoid of merit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. property inheritance claims and dispositions. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. dispute regarding the restoration of land granted to ancestors. (Para 3) |
| 3. legitimacy of claims based on ancestral rights. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. invocation of ptcl act provisions. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. civil courts' jurisdiction over disputed facts. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. outcome of appeal against administrative decisions. (Para 19 , 20) |
ORDER :
T.M. NADAF, J.
1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 19.06.2023, in Writ Petition No.4101/2022 (SC/ST), passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case as found in paragraph Nos.4 to 7 of the order impugned reads as under:
“4. It is not in dispute that one Guruvayya, Sanna Thimmayya and Dodda Thimmayya were granted with lands in Survey No.248 vide order dated 14.4.1956. Survey No.248/1 measuring 9 acres 27 guntas is granted to one Guruvayya, similarly, land bearing survey No.248/2 measuring 9 acres 27 guntas is granted to Sanna Thimmayya and the land bearing Survey No.248/3 measuring 9 acres 27 guntas is granted to one Dodda Thimmayya.
5. Respondents 10 to 13 are tracing their right and title through the original grantee namely Guruvayya based on a registered sale deed. It is not in dispute that petitioners are the legal heirs of one Sanna Thimmaiah, while respondents 5 to 9 are the legal heirs of Guruvayya, who are not disputing the title of respondents 5 to 13. Survey No.248/1 which is granted to Guruvayya is re-assigned new survey No.471 while Survey No.248/2 measuring 9 acres 27 guntas which was granted to Sanna Thimmaiah is reassigned new Survey No.472.
6. The petitioners herein strangely moved an application before respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner seeking change of khata on the premise that the land which was granted to their ancestor Sanna Thimmaiah is now restored by the competent authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act"). Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner in turn, referred the matter to Respondent No.4-Tahsildar to hold an enquiry. On receipt of report by Respondent No.4-Tahsildar vide Annexure-G, Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner strangely takes up a suo-moto enquiry under the provisions of the PTCL Act and passes an order for restoration in respect of Survey No.471 which was never granted to the petitioners' ancestor namely Sanna Thimmaiah.
7. Respondents 10 to 13 feeling aggrieved by this order of restoration, preferred an appeal before respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner. Respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner on an enquiry found that petitioners were not entitled to seek restoration of the land. Accordingly, respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner has allowed the appeal and reversed the order of restoration. The Deputy Commissioner while allowing the appeal held that petitioners cannot assert and claim that they are the legal heirs of Guruvayya. The second ground on which the Deputy Commissioner reversed the order is on the premise that the lis between the parties is purely a disputed question of fact and therefore, has proceeded to relegate both the parties to establish their right before the competent civil Court. This order is under challenged at the instance of the petitioners.”
3. The learned Single Judge after going through the entire materials placed before him found that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga - respondent No.2 does not call for interference and dismissed the writ petition, subscribing his reasons for the same at paragraph Nos.8 to 11, which reads as under:
“8. On meticulous examination of the entire material on record, I would not hesitate to hold that the entire claim of the petitioners is found to be totally misconceived. Under the garb of change of katha, petitioners have cleverly made an attempt to lay a claim over Survey No.248/1 now reassigned as
