Sri.a. Balakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04/07/2025 MADE IN WP NO.3047/2023, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND GRANT THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN THE WRIT PETITION.

¶30

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶32

and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶35

The present writ appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3047/2023 (KLR-RES).

¶36

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

¶37

to as per their rankings before the learned Single Judge.

¶38

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42299-DB WA No. 1636 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

The petitioner had challenged the notice issued to him in RUC(A)65/2020 in respect of the land in Old Sy.No.90 (New Sy.No.164) to the extent of 4 acres 19 guntas of land, which was originally granted to the petitioner. Initially the Tahsildar submitted a report in respect of Sy.No.90 (New Sy.No.164) situated in Kannamangala Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. This said land was reserved for Bangalore Airport. The Tahsildar was of the view that no land was available for grant in favour of the petitioner in the said survey number. The said order was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner. However, the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 05.08.2019 remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar to verify the said fact again. The Tahsildar after verification passed an order on 12.12.2019 stating that 59 acres 8 guntas was still remaining in Old Sy.No.90 (New Sy.No.164) and the appellant's name may be mutated to an extent of 4 acres 17 guntas.

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42299-DB WA No. 1636 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that on

¶44

the basis of the said order passed by the Tahsildar, petitioner's name has been mutated and now this notice dated 25.11.2022 should have not been issued inasmuch as the issue had attained the finality. The petitioner has challenged the said notice. There is nothing in the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, which prevents the competent authority to make further enquiries in respect of the government land. In any view of the matter, only notice has been issued to the appellant and he should reply to the said notice bringing all the facts in his favour o on record.

¶45

We are of the considered opinion that the Assistant Commissioner will examine all the documents and the contentions, which may be raised by the appellant and may pass a just, proper and legal order in accordance with law.

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:42299-DB WA No. 1636 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

We direct the Assistant Commissioner to conclude

¶50

the proceedings expeditiously within a period of two months, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Petitioner is directed to submit his reply to the show-cause notice within a period of two weeks enclosing all documents in his favour and raising all the contentions, which may be available to him on facts and law.

¶51