SMT. VEERAMMA @ CHIKKAVEERAMMA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 40162

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 15226 OF 2023 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN SMT. VEERAMMA @ CHIKKAVEERAMMA W/O LATE MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT INDRASHANAHALLI, HOSUR VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -562110.
...PETITIONER (BY SMT. SUSHEELA S. SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. CHETHAN B C., ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560001.
2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, BEEDASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562110. 3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA 561203.
LATE NANJUNDAPPA (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 7 LATE EERAMMA, (SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS RESPONDENT WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD)
4 . SRI NAGARAJ S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 5 . SMT MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 6 . SRI HANUMAPPA S/O LATE NAJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, SMT CHINNA AKKAYAMMA W/O LATE THIMMAIAH, (SINCE DEAD NO LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES)
7 . SRI NAGAIAH, S/O LATE EERA THIMMAIAH, (SINCE DEAD REP BY HIS LRS RESPONDENTS NO.7(a) TO 7(c)) 7(a). SMT. SUBBALAKASHAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS W/O LATE NAGAIAH
7(b). SMT. SHRUTHI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS D/O LATE NAGAIAH
7(c). SRI. SREEKANTH AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS S/O LATE NAGAIAH LATE NAGAPPA S/O LATE EERA THIMMAIAH (SINCE DEAD REP.BY RESPONDENTS NO 9 & 10)
8 . SMT GOPAMMA, W/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 9 . SMT NAGARATHNAMMA D/O LATE NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, LATE NARAYANAPPA (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS RESPONDENTS NO 11 TO 12)
10 . SMT VENKATALAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS RESPONDENT NO 10(a) & 10(b))
10(a). SRI. SRINIVAS S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
10(b). SRI. PRAKASH S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
11 . SRI. NAGESH S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, (SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS RESPONDENT NO 11(a) & 11(c))
SMT. ROOPA
1111.(a)
W/O LATE NAGESH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
11.(b) SRI. NAYAN KUMAR S/O LATE NAGESH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
11.(c) SRI. NANDAN KUMAR S/O LATE NAGESH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
12 . SMT RAMAKKA W/O LATE SUBBARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 13 . SRI MUNIKRISHNA S/O LATE SUBBARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO. 4 TO 13 ARE R/AT INDRESHANAHALLI HOSURU VILLAGE, KUNDANAHALLI HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK 562110.
14 . SRI B G UDAY S/O B N GARUDACHAR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO 78/1, NEW K R ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU 560004.
15 . SRI BASAVARAJU S/O M BASAVANNA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO 12, 308, 3RD FLOOR, RAHEJA CHAMBER, MUSEUM ROAD, BENGALURU 560001.
16 . SRI RITESH KUMAR GUPTA S/O SRI ALOKE KUMAR GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO 302, EDEN PARK, NO 20, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU 560001 ……RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARUNA G.S., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. R. KIRAN., ADVOCATE FOR R4-R6, R8, R9, R13, R7(A-C), R10(A-B), R11(A-C)
SRI. H.S.DWARAKANATH., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MITHUN S.K., ADVOCATE FOR R16 SRI. S.KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND., ADVOCATE FOR R14 NOTICE TO R12 & R15 DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 23/07/2025)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 29.05.2023 PASSED BY THE R2-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO. LND/SC-ST (APPEAL) 18/2017 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 11.09.2025 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 aggrieved of the impugned order at Annexure-L dated 29.05.2023 passed by the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in PTCL proceedings bearing No.LND/SC.ST (Appeal) 18/2017.

2. Learned Senior Counsel Smt. S. Susheela, appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an application before the third respondent-Assistant Commissioner invoking Section 5 of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘PTCL Act’) seeking a declaration that the sale deeds dated 21.06.2006 and 12.10.2006 executed by Sri B.G.Uday, respondent No.14 herein, as power of attorney holder in favour of Sri Basavaraj, respondent No.15, is null and void and consequently to resume and restore the lands bearing Sy.No.7, New Sy. No.7/P12, measuring 4.00 Acres situated at Thindlu village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, in favour of the petitioner, who is the legal heir of the original grantee-Smt.Nagamma.

3. The Assistant Commissioner accepted the fact that the land in question was granted in favour of Smt.Nagamma on 11.11.1947 under Order bearing No.56/1946-47, which was a re-grant. It was found that respondent No.14 herein, on the basis of a concocted General Power of Attorney, executed sale deed dated 21.06.2006 and sold the property in favour of respondent No.15-Sri.M.B.Basavaraj. Respondent No.15 in turn sold the property in favour of respondent No.16 under registered sale deed dated 12.10.2006. It was held that the sale of granted land being after commencement of the Act, was in violation of Section 4(2) of the Act which mandates prior permission at the hands of the State Government. It was found that no such permission was granted by the State Government in terms of Section 4(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the application and directed resumption of the lands to the Government and directed restoration of the same in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee.

4. However in appeal, the Deputy Commissioner held that although it is true that the lands were granted to Smt.Nagamma, who is a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, nevertheless the grant was for a reduced upset price of Rs.25/- and therefore the grant was not a free grant. The Deputy Commissioner further held that if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, then, since the petitioner nor any of the legal heirs of Smt.Nagamma has sold the property, then there is no transfer as defined in the Act and therefore the petitioner will have to approach a competent Civil Court to redress her grievance. The Deputy Commissioner held that it is for the petitioner to prove that she is the sole surviving legal heir of Smt.Nagamma and get a declaration that the sale deed is not binding on her. In that view of the matter, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Smt.S.Susheela, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has overlooked settled position of law. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Guntaiah and Others Vs. Hambamma and Others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 228 has held that once conditions are imposed by the granting authority stipulating non- alienation clause, the subsequent purchaser cannot contend that such conditions could not have been imposed, either on the ground that a price was stipulated and collected by the granting authority or on any other such grounds including the contention that the land was granted under Grow More Food Scheme (under Rule 43-G of the Mysore Land Revenue Rules). It was held that the Government, while granting lands can impose any conditions which are permissible under law. It does not lie in the mouth of the subsequent purchaser to contend that since the lands were granted for a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document