BEFORE THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH DIVISION BANGALORE URBAN
DISTRICT AT BANGALORE
PTCL No.(S) No. /2022-23
Between:
Smt. Akkayyamma Aged about 48
W/O Ravikumar. E R/at. Bhaktharahalli village, Nadavatthi
Post, Hosakote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.
2. Smt. Renukamma D/o late munivenkatappa R/at.
Mukandapalli Village, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District
Tamilnadu.
3. Smt.Sowbhaghya D/o late Munivenkatappa Aged about
36 years,
4. Smt. Lakshmamma W/o late Yellappa, Aged about 48
years,
5. Sri Sudhakar S/o late yallappa. Aged about 28 years,
6. Smt. Nandini D/o late yallappa Aged about 26 years,
7. Sri. Kiran S/o late yallappa Aged about 24 years,
[3:42 pm, 28/11/2024] My Jio: 11211
Sri Srinivas S/o late, Munivenkatappa.
All are R/at: S.Bingipura Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk,
Bangaluru district.
And
1. The Thasildar Anekal taluk, Bengaluru urban district
2. Smt. Kyatran, W/o Chinnaswamy Aged about 45 years,
R/at:, Begur village and post, Begur Hobli, Bangalore
South taluk. Bengaluru 560 068.
...RESPONDENTS.
PETITION UNDER SECTION 4 AND 5 OF THE KARNATAKA
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES
(PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) ACT,
1978:
The Petitioners respectfully submit as follows:
1) The addresses of the parties for the purposes of service
of Court Notice, summons, etc. are as stated in the cause
title. The petitioners may also be served through their
counsel B. M.Raghavendra Advocates, No.1101/4, Otc
road, Nagarthpet, Bangalore
[3:42 pm, 28/11/2024] My Jio: 23 The Petitioners
respectfull salimit that, the agricultural property bearing
ond Survey No 170 and new Survey No 179/08 Saensuring
to an extent of 1 acre, situated at Slingpura Village, Jigeni
Hobli. Anekal Taluk, Bangaluru патappa, Vide order in
LNDSR.101/77-78 under D.D. Kules dated 13-07-1979
through block No.7 in the of Special Deputy Commissioner
Bangalore District Subsequently the Saguvali Chit had
been issued be the same infavour of Munivenkatappa and
same was granted free of cost with a condition of non
alienation period of 15 years. The copy of the Grant
Certificate and Saguvali Chit, official Memorandum Vide
No.LNID)(1)SR3:37/77-78 dated 06-7- 1978 and Grant
sketch are herewith produced as DOCUMENT No.1 to 3.
3. The Petitioners respectfully submit that, orginal grantee
Murrivenkatappa ot married Smt. Muniakkayamma,
Between their wedlock, 2 male issues and 3 female issues
are born to them te. 1. Yellappa, died on 23-03-2012,
leaving behind the appellants No. 4 to7 helen) 2.
Akkayyamma (First Appellant herein) 3. Sowhhagya
(Appellant No. 3) and Srinivas (Appellant. No.8) and the
family of the original grape by name Muravenkatappa,
belongs Scheduled Caste mmunity. The original grantee
by name Munsenkatappa died on 26-10-2012 Jeng behind
the petitioners as his legal heirs to his entire este
[3:43 pm, 28/11/2024] My Jio: Muninkkayamma died on
18-07-2017. The Petitiomers herewith produced the Caste
Certificate for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court And
genealogical tree of petitioners are herewith produced
and marked as Document No. 4 to 6
4 The D caste. Said Munivenkatappa S/o Munishamappa
and children were highly illiterate and ignorant and having
absolutely no knowledge of worldly affairs.
5. The petitioners submit that, the respondent No.2 taking
undue advantage of the situation coerced, played fraud
and managed to obtain a Registered Sale Deed dated 29-
11-1993 vide Document No.1162/1993-94, in Book-1
registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Anekal from
Munivenkatappa S/o Munishamappa, in respect of the land
measuring 1 Acre, without obtaining previous permission
from the Government and without obtaining the signature
of legal heirs of the Munivenkatappa S/o Munishamappa.
The copy of the sale deed dated 29-11-1993,
Encumbrances certificate from the year 1977 to 2022 and
Mutation Register No.7/93-94 are herewith produced as
DOCUMENT No. 7 to 10.
[3:43 pm, 28/11/2024] My Jio: 06. The petitioners
respecially submit that, said Munivenkatappa S/o
Munishamappa misrepresented in executing the alleged
sale deed. He was forced to sign the alleged sale deed
without knowing the contents of the and without
execution of the alleged document. The Petitioners most
respectfully submit that, none of the parties herein have
obtained the prior sale permission from the Government.
The alleged sale deed/ transaction was without free
consent and without consideration and the sale
transaction was within non-alienation period of 15 years
and the same has no sanctity in the eyes of Law.
07. The Petitioners submit that the alleged sale deed was
in violation of grant rules and provisions of Section 4 & 5
of the Act. It is submitted that the alleged sale was
without the previous sanction/Permission of the
Government and there is strongly violation of the
provisions of the PTCL Act while dealing with the schedule
property. Thus the alleged sale was liable to be set aside
and the alleged Sale Deed is to be declared as null and
void, the same having violated the provisions of the PTCL
Act and more specifically the obtaining of permission from
appropriate authority prior to the sale. Consequently, the
schedule property is liable for
[3:43 pm, 28/11/2024] My Jio: Resumption by this Hon'ble
Court and subsequently, for restoration in the names and
in favour of petitioners in legal heirs of the original
grantee Munivenkatappa S/ Munishamappa in accordance
with law.
08. The petitioners submit that, they have not filed any
petitions before this Hon'ble Court against the
respondents in respect of petition schedule property.
Wherefore, the petitioners respectfully pray that this
Hon'ble Court to pass order:
(a) Declaring the alleged sale deed executed by Late
Munivenkatappa S/o Munishamappa in favour of
respondent No.2 vide Sale Deed dated 29-11-1993 vide
Document No.1162/1993-94, in Book-1 registered in the
Office of the Sub-Registrar, Anekal vide, Sale Deed dated
29-11-1993 are null and void.
(b) By ordering the restoration of the land in question in
favour of legal heirs of the original grantee ie, petitioners
as they are legal heirs of Munivenkatappa S/o
Munishamappa through the process of Law,
(c) By passing such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and
also in the interest of justice and
