Allowed¶57

Sri Y C Srinivas v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2025WP/25220/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Phodi and durasti; Karnataka land grant; genuineness of grant conclusively determined; Tahasildar Hoskote Taluk; mandamus under Articles 226/227; Karnataka Lokayukta enquiry pendency not a bar to mandamus; finality of Co-ordinate Bench findings in W.P.No.22247/2023 dated 16.07.2024; Annexure-D1 dated 02.03.2017; Annexure-E; proceedings under Section 136(2) of the Act; grant order date September 1978 technical objection; representation dated 05.08.2024 Annexure-G; three-month compliance timeline; NC: 2025:KHC:1273.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 directed to consider the representation dated 05.08.2024 vide Annexure-G by taking cognizance of the findings recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench at para No.7 of W.P.No.22247/2023; the exercise to be accomplished within three months from the date of receipt of order copy. ¶57

Sri Y C Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tahasildar/respondents can refuse to act on the petitioner's representation dated 05.08.2024 for conduct of phodi and durasti on the ground that an enquiry into the genuineness of the grant is pending before the Karnataka Lokayukta, and whether mandamus should issue. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

The pendency of an enquiry before the Karnataka Lokayukta into the genuineness of the grant is no ground to dismiss the writ petition; the HCGP's objection on that basis cannot be acceded to.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The genuineness of the grant was conclusively determined by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.22247/2023 (para 7), corroborated by Annexure-D1 dated 02.03.2017 of the jurisdictional Tahasildar; the Revenue Authorities are precluded from revisiting the matter.

¶44

Key takeaways

The genuineness of the grant cannot be subjected to perpetual scrutiny by the Revenue Authorities; principles of judicial discipline and finality require such issues to be resolved conclusively in a single proceeding.ratio¶45
The technical objection that the 31st day is not present in September 1978 (date in the grant order) is insufficient to undermine the substantive conclusion that the land was validly granted to the petitioner.ratio¶50
The State, having failed to challenge the findings in W.P.No.22247/2023 before the appropriate forum, allowed those findings to attain finality, conferring on the petitioner an undeniable legal right to seek enforcement of the grant.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to respondent No.3 – Tahasildar, Hoskote Taluk, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.08.2024 (Annexure-G) for conduct of phodi and durasti in respect of granted land. The State opposed, relying on a complaint by one Shivananda before the Karnataka Lokayukta questioning the genuineness of the grant, with enquiry pending. Held: the genuineness of the grant stood conclusively determined by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.22247/2023 (para 7 extracted), read with the Tahasildar's endorsement Annexure-D1 dated 02.03.2017; the pending Lokayukta enquiry and the technical objection that the 31st day is absent in September 1978 were insufficient; the genuineness of a grant cannot be subjected to perpetual scrutiny, and the Co-ordinate Bench findings had attained finality as the State never challenged them. Writ petition allowed; respondent Nos.2 and 3 directed to consider the representation within three months of receipt of the order copy.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:1273 WP No. 25220 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.25220 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI Y C SRINIVAS S/O LATE CHIKKABACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT YENAGUNTE VILLAGE SULIBELE HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.SHIVASHANKAR K, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA REP BY ITS SECRETARY Location: HIGH M S BUILDING COURT OF KARNATKA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

¶13

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS HOSKOTE TALUK HOSKOTE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114

¶14

THE THASILDAR HOSKOTE TALUK

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:1273 WP No. 25220 of 2024

¶17

HOSKOTE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.MANJUNATHA K, HCGP)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD 05.08.2024 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER VIDE AT ANNX-G TO CONDUCT THE PHODI AND DURASTHI IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PROPERTY AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This captioned writ petition is filed seeking direction against respondent No.3 - Tahasildar to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 05.08.2024 submitted as per Annexure-G to conduct phodi and durasti in respect of the petition land.

¶25

2. Learned HCGP, on instructions, submits that one Shivananda has lodged a complaint with the Karnataka Lokayukta questioning the genuineness of the petitioner’s grant and enquiry is pending in regard to the genuineness

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1273 WP No. 25220 of 2024

¶27

of the Grant Order. The complaint is lodged against the Tahasildar questioning the genuineness of the grant order before the Karnataka Lokayukta and therefore, the learned HCGP has tried to persuade this Court to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that an enquiry is pending in regard to genuineness of the grant order, no further indulgence is warranted in the case on hand and therefore, no mandamus can be issued.

¶28

3. This submission is effectively countered by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He would place reliance on the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.22247/2023 dated 16.07.2024. Citing this judgment, he would contend that the genuineness of the grant obtained by the petitioner is given quietus in the judgment cited supra. Therefore, he would contend that the respondents cannot defer or object the prayer sought in the writ petition vide Annexure-G.

¶29

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for the respondents.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:1273 WP No. 25220 of 2024

¶32

5. The case on hand clearly depicts a very sorry state of affair. The Revenue Authorities, somehow, are not

¶33

obeying the orders passed by the Constitutional Courts. The case on hand is a classic case, where respondent No.3 – Tahasildar has audacity in not passing orders on the representations submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-G, wherein the request is made to conduct phodi and durasti by taking cognizance of the grant order.

¶34

6. Learned HCGP has made a feeble attempt in persuading this Court to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that the enquiry is pending before the Karnataka Lokayukta also cannot be acceded to.

¶35

7. This Court deems it fit to cull out para No.7 of W.P.No.22247/2023, which would give a quietus to the objections raised by the Revenue Authorities in declining to conduct phodi and durasti . The para No.7 is extracted, which reads as under;

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:1273 WP No. 25220 of 2024

¶38

"7. Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and no careful examination of the writ papers would indicate that, respondent No.2, by letter dated 05.05.2015 (Annexure-D) by considering the proceedings under Section 136(2) of the Act, has arrived at a conclusion regarding the genuineness of the grant made in favour of the petitioner. However, respondent No.3 has been directed to look into the original records in the office of the respondent No.3. In furtherance of the same, respondent No.3 by letter dated 02.03.2017 (Annexure-F) has arrived at a conclusion that the land in question has been validly granted in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, ordered for change of entry in the computerized pahani records (Annexure-F)."

¶39

8. Upon a closer examination of the observations made by this Court in the extracted paragraph from W.P.No.22247/2023, it becomes evident that the genuineness of the grant in favor of the petitioner has already been adjudicated by the Co-ordinate Bench. The objections raised by the Revenue Authorities, questioning the genuineness of the grant and declining to conduct

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:1273 WP No. 25220 of 2024

¶42

phodi and durasti , have been addressed and resolved in the earlier proceedings. Notably, the notice dated 06.10.2024, which sought to initiate an enquiry into the genuineness of the grant, was set aside by the Co-ordinate Bench. This fact is further corroborated by the operative portion of the judgment in W.P.No.22247/2023, which unequivocally affirms the validity of the grant.

¶43

9. Thus, the Revenue Authorities are precluded from

¶44

revisiting the matter, as the Co-ordinate Bench has provided a conclusive determination regarding the genuineness of the grant.

¶45

10. It is imperative to emphasize that the genuineness of the grant cannot be subjected to perpetual scrutiny by the Revenue Authorities. The principles of judicial discipline and finality dictate that such issues must be resolved conclusively in a single proceeding. In this case, Annexure-D1, dated 02.03.2017, issued by the jurisdictional Tahasildar, clearly establishes the

¶46

genuineness of the grant made in favor of the petitioner.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:1273 WP No. 25220 of 2024

¶49

The Tahasildar, after a thorough review of the relevant records, recommended and confirmed the validity of the grant. This conclusion was subsequently endorsed by the Co-ordinate Bench, which relied on the findings of the Tahasildar to uphold the genuineness of the grant. The subsequent filing of a fresh complaint by one Shivananda against the present Tahasildar does not alter or diminish the legal effect of the earlier findings. While the learned HCGP has raised a technical objection regarding the date mentioned in the grant order, specifically, that the 31^st day

¶50

is not present in September 1978, such an objection is insufficient to undermine the substantive conclusion that the land was validly granted to the petitioner.

¶51

11. In view of the above, the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, as evidenced by Annexure-E, conclusively establishes the genuineness of the grant. The State, if aggrieved by the findings in W.P.No.22247/2023, ought to have challenged the order before the appropriate forum. Having failed to do so, the findings of the

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:1273 WP No. 25220 of 2024

¶54

Co-ordinate Bench have attained finality, conferring upon the petitioner an undeniable legal right to seek enforcement of the grant. Consequently, it is incumbent upon the respondents, including Respondent Nos.1 to 3, to proceed with the conduct of phodi and durasti in accordance with the law. Any further delay or refusal to act on the part of the Revenue Authorities would amount to a denial of the petitioner’s rightful claims, as upheld by this Court. Therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to undertake the necessary measures for phodi and durasti without any further delay, as the validity of the grant has been conclusively determined.

¶55

12. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶58

(ii) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are hereby directed to consider the

¶59

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1273 WP No. 25220 of 2024

¶60

representation dated 05.08.2024 vide Annexure-G by taking cognizance of the findings recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench at para No.7 of the writ petition No.22247/2023.

¶61

(iii) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of three months from the date of receipt of order copy.

¶62

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶63

NBM

¶64

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Sri Y C Srinivas v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Y C Srinivas v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Microland Limited Vs K M Lakshmaiah Reddy

Mrs. Veda Pradha Vs M/S Jabm Onesource Private Limited

Basappa S Vs the Principal Secretary

Smt Sukhaveniyamma Vs the Government of Karnataka

Sri Basavanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sarojini Shedthi Vs State of Karnataka