-1-

NC: 2023:KHC:33146
WP No. 13591 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO. 13591 OF 2023 (SCST)

BETWEEN:

SRI. LACHA NAIK

S/O LATE, SANKRANAIK,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCC.KOOLI, R/AT HADIGERE GRAMA,
AMBRUTHAPURA HOBLI,
TARIKERI TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GOPAL V. BILALMANE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Digitally REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
signed by R REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
DEEPA MS BUILDING,
Location: BANGALORE-560001.
High Court
of Karnataka
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHICKMAGALURU-577001,
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

SUB-DIVISION, TARIKERE TALUK-577101,
CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT.

4. THE TAHASILDAR
TARIKERI TALUK-577101,
CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT.
 -2-
NC: 2023:KHC:33146
WP No. 13591 of 2023

5. SRI SATHISHA
S/O CHANDRAPPA,
HADIKARE GRAMA,
AMBRUTHAPURA HOBLI,
TARIKERE TALUK-577101.

6. SRI HARISHA
S/O CHANDRAPPA,
HADIKARE GRAMA,
AMBRUTHAPURA HOBLI,
TARIKERE TALUK-577101.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND

227 OF THE COSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER TARIKERE
BEARING NO. SC ST 749/78-79 DTD. 23.11.1982 AS ANNX-A
AND ORDER DTD. 21.12.1999 PASSED SC ST NO. 74/98-99
AS ANNX-B AND FURTHER ORDER OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER CHICKMAGALURU IN CAST NO. PTL 47/1999-
2000 DTD. 19.09.2000 AS ANNX-C AND ORDER PASSED BY
THE ASST COMMISSIONER TARIKERE CASE NO. SC ST NO.
02/2021-22 DTD. 17.02.2023 AS ANNX-D WHICH IS
ENCLOSED WITH THIS WP AS ANNX-A B C D.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner filed the present writ petition

challenging the orders dated 23.11.1982, vide Annexure-

A; 21.12.1999, vide Annexure-B; 19.09.2000, vide

Annexure-C; and 17.02.2023, vide Annexure-D.

 -3-
NC: 2023:KHC:33146
WP No. 13591 of 2023

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition

are as under:

Land bearing Sy.No.38 measuring 3 acres 35 guntas

situated at Ramanahalli Village in Tarikere Taluk was

granted in favour of Sri. Sankaranaik, father of petitioner

with a condition that he should not alienate the property

for 20 years. Petitioner's father sold the said land in

favour of Late Mohammed Shafi on 15.12.1961 and

corrigendum was effected to the sale deed and sale was

completed on 02.07.1975. Petitioner's father filed an

application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before

respondent No.3 for restoration of granted land.

Respondent No.3 rejected the said petition vide order

dated 23.11.1982 – Annexure-A. After the death of

petitioner's father, petitioner's elder brother after attaining

majority filed a similar application on the same ground

under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before respondent No.3.

Respondent No.3 rejected the said application vide order

dated 21.12.1999 – Annexure-B. Aggrieved by the said

order, petitioner's brother preferred an appeal before

 -4-
NC: 2023:KHC:33146
WP No. 13591 of 2023

respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 vide order dated

19.09.2000 – Annexure-C, dismissed the appeal. After

the death of petitioner's brother, petitioner filed an

application under the provisions of PTCL Act before

respondent No.3 on the same grounds. The respondent

No.3 vide order dated 17.02.2023 – Annexure-D, rejected

the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the orders vide

Annexures A, B, C and D, the petitioner has filed this writ

petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

respondent No.3 has not conducted any enquiry while

passing order as per Annexure-A. He submits that the

said aspect was also not considered by respondent No.2

while passing the order dated 21.12.1999, Annexure-B.

He submits that respondents No.2 and 3 have committed

an error in passing the impugned orders. He submits that

the sale transaction is in violation of Section 4(2) of the

PTCL Act. Hence he submits that respondents No.2 and 3

have failed to consider the object of enactment of the

 -5-
NC: 2023:KHC:33146
WP No. 13591 of 2023

PTCL Act. On these grounds he prays to allow the writ

petition.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Government

Advocate supports the impugned orders and prays to

dismiss the writ petition.

5. Perused the records and considered the

submission of learned counsel for the parties.

6. It is not in dispute that the land bearing No.38 of

Ramanahalli Village was granted in favour of father of the

petitioner. The original grantee, i.e., petitioner's father

sold the said land in favour of Late Mohammed Shafi under

registered sale deed dated 15.12.1961. Later on, a

corrigendum was effected the said sale deed on

02.07.1975. The PTCL Act came into force in the year

1978. The original grantee filed an application under

Section 5 of the PTCL Act for restoration and resumption

of land. Respondent No.3 passed an order on 23.11.1982,

Annexure-A, rejecting the said application. Thereafter,

 -6-
NC: 2023:KHC:33146
WP No. 13591 of 2023

petitioner's father died. Petitioner's brother filed similar

application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act on identical

grounds before respondent No.3 alleging that the sale

transaction is in violation of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act.

Respondent No.3 after holding enquiry, dismissed the said

application vide order dated 21.12.1999, Annexure-B.

Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner's brother preferred

an appeal before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 vide

order dated 19.09.2000, Annexure-C, dismissed the

appeal. After the death of petitioner's brother, petitioner

filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act on

identical grounds before respondent No.3. Respondent

No.3 vide order dated 17.02.2023, Annexure-D, rejected

the application filed by the petitioner. Admittedly, the

orders passed by the competent authority have attained

finality. The petitioner has filed this writ petition

challenging the aforesaid orders. The orders passed by

respondents No.2 and 3 are having binding effect on the

petitioner.
 -7-
NC: 2023:KHC:33146
WP No. 13591 of 2023

7. This Court refers to the decision of Constitution

Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DARYAO

AND OTHERS VS THE STATE OF U. P. AND OTHERS reported

in AIR 1961 SC 1457 wherein it is held that "it is in the

interest of the public at large that a finality should attach

to the binding decisions pronounced by Courts' of

competent jurisdiction, and it is also in the public interest

that individuals should not be vexed twice over with the

same kind of litigation. The binding character of judgments

pronounced by the Courts of competent jurisdiction is itself

an essential part of the rule of law, and the rule of law

obviously is the basis of the administration of justice on

which the Constitution lays so much emphasis." As

observed above, the original grantee filed an application

under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The said application

came to be rejected. After lapse of 16 years, the elder

son of original grantee filed similar application before the

respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 rejected the said

application vide order dated 21.12.1999. Against the

order passed by respondent No.3, petitioner's brother

 -8-
NC: 2023:KHC:33146
WP No. 13591 of 2023

preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 and the said

appeal was dismissed vide order dated 19.09.2000.

8. The Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of

SRI NARAYANASWAMY VS. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER,

BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT in W.A.NO.3855/2019

disposed of on 06.11.2019 held that once the proceedings

under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 1978 are

filed/initiated and the same are either withdrawn or

dismissed on merits, a fresh petition/second petition on

the same cause of action and the same subject matter, is

not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed on

this ground alone. The second petition is clearly barred by

the principles of estoppel, acquiescence, abandonment and

waiver.

9. The said order is squarely applicable to the

present case on hand. In view of the same, petitioner has

not made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned

orders. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

 -9-
NC: 2023:KHC:33146
WP No. 13591 of 2023

ORDER

The writ petition is dismissed.

SD/-
JUDGE

RD