Sri Venkatappa v. State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 5157 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN:

SRI VENKATAPPA S/O LATE DODDAVENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT ANDALAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK-562101 AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. L.NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUDHINDRA S. A., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1STATE OF KARNATAKA REP.BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU

¶2THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHICKBALLAPURA-562101 CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT

¶3THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHICKBALLAPURA SUB DIVISION-562101 CHICKBALLAPURA

¶4M.KRISHNAPPA S/O SONAPPA, ANDALARLAHALLI VILLAGE,

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

NANDI HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK-562101 DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. G.V.SHASHIKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.L.Narasimhamurthy., counsel on behalf of Sri.Sudhindra.S.A., for the petitioner; Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and Sri.G.V.Shashikumar., counsel for respondent No.4 appeared in person.

¶2The petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. These orders are challenged in this writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of the writ petition.

¶3Counsel for the respective parties advanced several contentions.

Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there was no sale of the subject land by the family of the grantee. On this ground, it was contended that the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are liable to be quashed.

The AGA and the counsel appearing for respondent No.4, on the other hand, justified the orders passed by the authorities below. They further urged additional grounds in support of the orders and submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶4The Court has heard the counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material available on record.

¶5The issue in the present proceedings is confined to the resumption proceedings initiated under the PTCL Act. The subject land was granted in favor of the grantee during the year 1947-48. Subsequently, the subject land was conveyed under a registered sale deed during the year 1965-66.

Nearly years after the said sale, resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner during the year 2009-10, seeking resumption of the subject land. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, who confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have rejected the claim. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the authorities were justified in rejecting the proceedings.

The contention of the petitioner that there was no sale by the family of the grantee has also been carefully considered. If the specific contention of the petitioner is that no sale of the subject land had taken place, the very basis for initiating proceedings under the PTCL Act would not arise for consideration. Therefore, the said contention does not advance the case of the petitioner. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74