H.P. Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ANNEXURE-A I.E., ORDER DATED 18.03.2025 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN R.A (A) NO. 207/2018-19 PERTAINING TO THE INAM LAND BEARING NO.67/1, NEW SY. NO. 67/3 MEASURING 8.08 GUNTAS OF HEGGAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA 3 HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER CONCERN AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the instance of the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, it appears that the Assistant Commissioner took up the matter under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (for short,

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35063 WP No. 25753 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

'the Act') while contending that the land in question belongs to the Government and accordingly, the revenue entries which were standing from the year 1967 have been set aside by the impugned order while directing the Tahsildar to enter the name of the Government in column Nos.9 and 12. Learned counsel submits that when the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, the Deputy Commissioner has refused to entertain the revision petition.

¶30

Having regard to the facts narrated in the impugned order, it is clear that proceedings were initiated under Section 136(2) of the Act, only to remove the names of the petitioner from the revenue entries, which is not permissible if the contention of the Tahsildar is that the land belongs to the government. Appropriate proceedings have not been initiated at the hands of the competent authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act or before any competent civil Court, to get a declaration that the land is government land.

¶31

In that view of the matter, the impugned order is

¶32

stayed and liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file a revision

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35063 WP No. 25753 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

petition before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner is also directed to take up the revision petition, which will be filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. If such a revision petition is filed, the Deputy Commissioner shall consider the same in accordance with law and thereafter pass orders and dispose of the revision petition as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of four months from the date when which the revision petition will be filed by the petitioner. Till then, the impugned order shall stand stayed.

¶36

Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

¶37

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶38

rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT: BHK

H.P. Manjunath v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.P. Manjunath v. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Chinnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kantharaju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R Prakash Vs the Assistant Commissioner

St.Annes High School Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Nagaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri L R Chandrashetty Vs State of Karnataka