Smt Muthamma v. The Principal Secretary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.11822 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:

¶1SMT. MUTHAMMA WIFE OF LATE GANGARANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT DODDAKARENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-56212. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PUNITH C., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶2THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ZILLADILTHA BHAVANA, 1ST FLOOR, BEERSANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562110.

¶3THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION - 561 203.

¶4THE TAHSILDAR,

by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:42039( WP(No.(11822(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010255072026( ( ( NELAMANAGALA,TALUK,-572,101., , ,

5., SRI.,VENKATESH, S/O,LATE,HUCHAIAH, AGED,ABOUT,50,YEARS, R/AT,NO.11,,BURUGAMARAD,PALYA, KASABA,HOBLI,,NELAMANGALA,TALUK, BENGALURU,RURAL,-,562123., ,

6., SMT.,LAKSHAMMA, W/O,NAGARAJ, AGED,ABOUT,50,YEARS, R/AT,NO.27,,NALLAKANADODDI, THARALU,POST,,UTHARAHALLI,HOBLI, BENGALURU,SOUTH,TALUK, BENGALURU,-560,061., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,SPOORTHY,HEGDE,N.,,HCGP,FOR,R1,TO,R4;, SRI.,M.V.,VEDACHALA,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R5,TO,R7), , , THIS, WRIT, PETITION, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO,,, DIRECT, THE, RESPONDENT, NO.2, TO, CONSIDER, THE, REPRESENTATION,DATED,17.02.2024,AS,PER,ANNEXURE-N., , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, ORDERS,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, ,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,E.S.INDIRESH, ORAL(ORDER( In,this,writ,petition,,the,petitioner,has,sought,for, a, direction, to, Respondent, No., 2, to, consider, the, representation, dated, 17.05.2025,, produced, as,

Annexure-N, and dated 24.05.2024, produced as Annexure-F.

¶2Heard Sri. Punith C., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and Sri. M.V. Vedachala, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 to 7.

¶3Sri. Punith C., learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had purchased the land in question under a registered Sale Deed dated 28.03.1964. He further submitted that this Court, at paragraph 7 of the order passed in W.P. No. 25260 of 2023, produced as Annexure-K, has recorded a finding that the land in question had been granted under the 'Grow More Food Scheme'. However, this Court also recorded a finding that the

respondent-authorities had no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of the PTCL Act.

¶4It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the order dated

19.12.2024 passed in W.P. No. 15914 of 2024, produced at Annexure-M, that the said writ petition was allowed in favour of the petitioner herein. However, this Court had observed that the said order was subject to the outcome of W.A. No. 889 of 2024. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in view of the findings already recorded by this Court, there is no impediment for the respondent-authorities to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records.

¶5Per contra, Sri. Vedachala, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 5 to 7, contended that the nature of the grant made by the Government is

pending consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 889 of 2024. Therefore, as the said appeal is pending consideration, the claim made by the petitioner cannot be accepted at this stage.

¶6Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the said writ appeal is pending consideration before the Division Bench of this Court. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Others reported in (2011) 11 SCC

¶396Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶7In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and upon careful consideration of the finding recorded by this Court in W.P. No. 25260 of 2023 at paragraph 7, it is

seen that the petitioner had purchased the land from the original grantee, who had been granted with the land under the 'Grow More Food Scheme'. However, the nature of such grant is stated to be pending consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 889 of 2024.

¶8It is also relevant to note that, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the land in question was purchased by the petitioner in the year 1964. Further, this Court, at paragraph 9 of the order passed in W.P. No.15914 of 2024, has already considered the claim of the petitioner. In view of the said finding, there is impediment for the respondent-authorities to consider the representations made by the petitioner, as the petitioner is claiming right over the property on the basis of a registered Sale Deed dated

28.03.1964. However, such

consideration shall remain subject to the result of the judgment that may be passed in W.A. No. 889 of 2024.

¶9In that view of the matter, Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 are directed to consider the representations produced as Annexure-N and P, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove, within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7