Disposed¶70

Sri S Muniraju v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2025WP/35168/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gomal land Survey No. 81, Vittasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk; land grabbing PIL; spurious khata RTC entries; S. 136(3) Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 review; Special Deputy Commissioner-II Case No.RRT(2)(S)CR:07/2021-22; grants genuine, mutation of revenue entries; encroachment removal 11 acres 25 guntas; BDA and BMRCL granted land; Government Orders LND(S)CR/271/19-20 and LND(B)CR/100/19-20; writ petition disposed, no further consideration survives.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; the writ petition was disposed of in light of the order dated 13.02.2025 of the Special Deputy Commissioner-II passed under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, leaving aggrieved parties at liberty to pursue their own recourse, if permissible in law. ¶70

Sri S Muniraju Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶70

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner-II under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (produced on memo dated 19.02.2025), anything further survives for consideration in the present public interest litigation. +1 more

¶73

Court's answer

The writ petition is liable to be disposed of in light of the aforesaid order dated 13.02.2025 (printed as '13.02.2005' at that paragraph) passed under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

¶70

Ratio / Principle

No further consideration survives in the present public interest litigation; the aggrieved parties are at liberty to have their own recourse, if permissible in law.

¶73

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public interest writ petition (KLR-RES-PIL) under Articles 226 and 227 by an editor of a Kannada weekly and a social worker concerning gomal land Survey No. 81 measuring 54 acres 38 guntas at Vittasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, alleging illegal occupation and attempted grab by land mafia using spurious khata/RTC entries, and praying for takeover of the land, reservation for public purpose, restraint on registration of sale deeds, a probe into the alleged scam, and declaration of revenue entries and sale deeds illegal. During pendency, the Additional Government Advocate produced, under memo dated 19.02.2025, the order dated 13.02.2025 of the Special Deputy Commissioner-II, Bengaluru in Case No.RRT(2)(S)CR:07/2021-22 passed under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 in proceedings initiated suo motu at the Tahsildar's request: the grants to original grantees were held genuine with possession continuing in legal heirs who executed sale deeds, no misrepresentation or fraud was found, and directions were issued to mutate revenue entries in the land owners' names, continue grantees' names after verifying grant documents, remove unauthorized encroachments from 11 acres 25 guntas, and require BDA and BMRCL to safeguard land granted to them per Government Orders No. LND(S)CR/271/19-20 and No.LND(B)CR/100/19-20. Holding (N. V. Anjaria, CJ authoring, with M. I. Arun, J) that no further consideration survived in the PIL, the Court disposed of the writ petition, leaving aggrieved parties at liberty to pursue their own recourse, if permissible in law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:9283-DB WP No. 35168 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 35168 OF 2018 (KLR-RES-PIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI S MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O SRI SANDAPPA, EDITOR AT NO.4, CHURCH COMPLEX RANOJI RAO ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560004

¶11

SRI M NAGARAJU

¶12

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O N MUNIYAPPA SOCIAL WORKER R/A NO.145, SANDAPPA LAYOUT MARUHTI NAGAR, YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560064

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

(BY SRI V.K. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI C M VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9283-DB WP No. 35168 of 2018

¶21

K G ROAD BENGALURU-560009

¶22

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD BENGALURU-560009

¶23

THE TAHASILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD BENGALURU-560009

¶24

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS 8TH FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD BENGALURU-560009

¶25

THE SUB REGISTRAR #76, 36TH MAIN ROAD DOLLARS SCHEME, NEAR CENTRAL SILK BOARD, BTM LAYOUT IST STAGE BENGALURU-560068

¶26

SRI R PRABHAKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O N RAMA REDDY R/A NO.1051, 8TH B MAIN 19TH CROSS, 7TH SECTOR HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU-560034

¶27

SRI K S VINOD KUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O LATE SREENIVASA REDDY NO.3, 6TH BLOCK, 17TH MAIN KATHALI PALYA, KORAMANGALA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560095

¶28

SRI KRISHNAPPA R S/O LATE T. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶29

SRI ANJINAPPA S/O GALAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9283-DB WP No. 35168 of 2018

¶31

SRI MUNIRAJU S/O. GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶32

SRI FRANCIS S/O. ANTHONIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶33

SMT. NAGAMANI D/O. JANGAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶34

SRI GURUVAIAH S/O. GURAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT VITTASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560068

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 TO 7; SRI B.R. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R10 TO 15) RESPONDENT NOS.8 & 9 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 TO IMMEDIATELY TAKEOVER THE CUSTODY OF THE ENTIRE GOMAL LAND IN SURVEY NO.81 MEASURING 54 ACRES 38 GUNTAS SITUATED AT VITTASANDRA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK AND WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION TO THE SAID RESPONDENTS TO RESERVE THE SAID LAND FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE AND ETC.

¶38

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9283-DB WP No. 35168 of 2018

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and

¶41

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶42

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶43

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶44

Heard learned advocate Mr. V.K. Narayana Swamy for learned advocate Mr. C.M. Venkata Reddy for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent Nos.1 to 7 and learned advocate Mr. B.R. Sridhar for learned advocate Mr. M. Shivaprakash for respondent Nos.10 to 15.

¶45

This public interest petition is filed by the petitioners, wherein petitioner No.1 happens to be the editor of Kannada weekly magazine and petitioner No.2 projects himself to be a social worker and a public spirited person.

¶46

It is the case that the petitioners came to know that land bearing Sy.No.81 which is a gomal land admeasuring 54 Acres 38

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9283-DB WP No. 35168 of 2018

¶48

Guntas situated at Vittasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluka was illegally occupied and attempted to be grabbed by land mafia and allegedly criminal persons. It was the case that they wanted to form a private layout on the land by carving of sites and selling the same to the purchasers by obtaining spurious documents like khata , RTC etc., from the revenue authorities in collusion.

¶49

3.1 It was stated that these details were highlighted in the Kannada weekly magazine but the authorities did not take any action. It was the case that since valuable gomal land was allegedly grabbed and was being looted causing huge loss to the government exchequer. In this regard, several FIRs were also filed. The petitioners came up with the present public interest litigation, wherein multiple prayers are advanced.

¶50

3.2 First prayer was to direct respondent Nos.1 to 5 to takeover the custody of the entire land Sy.No.81 which was claimed to be gomal land at Vittasandra Village. The second prayer was for restraining the execution and registration of sale deeds in respect of the land by respondent Nos.6 and 7 and further direction was prayed for against the government and the governmental

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9283-DB WP No. 35168 of 2018

¶52

authorities to order probe into the entire alleged land grabbing scam and take appropriate action.

¶53

3.3 Yet another prayer was advanced seeking to declare that all revenue entries like khata , RTC and other encumbrance certificates issued in respect of the said land Sy. No.81 as illegal and are in breach of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,1964 as well as the Rules and guidelines in that regard. It was also prayed to declare that the sale deed executed by respondent Nos.8 and 9 in favour of different purchasers to be illegal.

¶54

3.4 The pendency of the petition witnessed orders passed by this court from time to time dealing with the subject matter. Pleadings were also filed by the contesting respondents seeking to refute the case of the petitioners giving the factual details about the controversy.

¶55

3.5 Lastly, figures on record the memo dated 19.02.2025 filed by learned Additional Government Advocate, whereby copy of the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner-II, Bengaluru in Case No.RRT(2)(S)CR:07/2021-22 is produced. The order relates to the suo motu initiated by the

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:9283-DB WP No. 35168 of 2018

¶58

Special Deputy Commissioner-II at the request of the Tahsildar in relation to the subject matter land.

¶59

The detailed report about the status in respect of Sy. No.81 was obtained as also about the surplus gomal land. The said proceedings also dealt with the aspect of proposal to reserve land for constructing a Government Speciality Hospital on the said land.

¶60

4.1 The said order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 13.02.2025 records the findings as under,

¶61

"Upon careful examination of records, including the certified copy of the Saguvali Chit Register Extract, RTCs, and survey records, it is confirmed that the original grantees were in possession of the granted land. A personal visit to the Office of the Tahsildar and verification of available records further substantiated the legitimacy of the grant. Additionally, the legal heirs of the original grantees have continued to hold possession and have executed sale deeds, reinforcing their claim.

¶62

Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act provides the Special Deputy Commissioner with the authority to review and rectify revenue entries where there is an error or fraud. In the present case, there is no evidence indicating that the original grants were obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. Furthermore, the continuous possession of the land by the grantees, as reflected in the RTCs, and the payment of land revenue support the respondents' claim to ownership.

¶63

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9283-DB WP No. 35168 of 2018

¶64

By considering all these things, I am of the opinion that, the impugned proceedings are liable to be dropped. Further, the revenue entry has to be mutated in the name of the land owners."

¶65

4.2 It is an order passed under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka

¶66

Land Revenue Act, 1964, wherein the final findings and directions came to be given as under,

¶67

"1. The Tahsildar shall verify the grant documents furnished by the respondents and, upon confirmation of their authenticity, ensure the continuation of their names in the revenue records, as the grant is found to be genuine.

¶68

The Tahsildar shall take necessary legal action to identify and remove unauthorized encroachments from the land measuring 11 acres and 25 guntas, as per the report. This process shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and other applicable laws.

¶69

The Tahsildar shall formally communicate with the beneficiary institutions, namely the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL), directing them to take appropriate measures to safeguard the land granted to them for public purposes as per Government Orders No. LND(S)CR/271/19-20 and No.LND(B)CR/100/19-20."

¶70

4.3 The writ petition is liable to be disposed of in light of the aforesaid order dated 13.02.2005 passed under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

¶71

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:9283-DB WP No. 35168 of 2018

¶73

In view of the above, no further consideration survives in the present public interest litigation, the aggrieved parties are at liberty to have their own recourse, if permissible in law.

¶74

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶75

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶76

KPS

¶77

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 100

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Public interest writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying for a writ of mandamus to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to take over custody of the entire gomal land in Survey No. 81 measuring 54 acres 38 guntas at Vittasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and to reserve it for public purpose, among other prayers.¶37
Prior proceeding
Petitioners alleged that gomal land Sy.No.81 (54 acres 38 guntas) was illegally occupied and attempted to be grabbed by land mafia, who sought to form a private layout by carving sites and selling them using spurious documents such as khata and RTC obtained from revenue authorities in collusion.¶48
Prior proceeding
It was stated the matter was highlighted in a Kannada weekly magazine but authorities took no action; several FIRs were filed regarding the alleged grabbing of valuable gomal land causing huge loss to the government exchequer.¶49
Prior proceeding
During pendency, orders were passed by this court from time to time dealing with the subject matter, and the contesting respondents filed pleadings seeking to refute the petitioners' case.¶54
Prior proceeding
By memo dated 19.02.2025, the learned Additional Government Advocate produced a copy of the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner-II, Bengaluru in Case No.RRT(2)(S)CR:07/2021-22.¶55
Prior proceeding
The Special Deputy Commissioner-II had initiated the proceedings suo motu at the request of the Tahsildar in relation to the subject land; a detailed report was obtained on the status of Sy.No.81 and surplus gomal land, and the proceedings dealt with a proposal to reserve land for constructing a Government Speciality Hospital.¶58
Prior proceeding
In the order dated 13.02.2025, the Special Deputy Commissioner-II recorded findings that the original grantees were in possession of the granted land and their legal heirs continued possession and executed sale deeds; there was no evidence of misrepresentation or fraud, and continuous possession reflected in RTCs and payment of land revenue supported the claim to ownership.¶62
Prior proceeding
The order concluded that the proceedings were liable to be dropped and the revenue entry mutated in the name of the land owners; the Tahsildar was directed to verify grant documents and continue the grantees' names in revenue records, remove unauthorized encroachments from 11 acres 25 guntas, and communicate with BDA and BMRCL to safeguard land granted to them per Government Orders No. LND(S)CR/271/19-20 and No.LND(B)CR/100/19-20.¶68

Sri S Muniraju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S Muniraju 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Yojaka India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Department of Tourism

Cold Pyramid Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Amith Agro Industries Vs the Union of India

M/S Service Master Clean Ltd. Vs Employees Sate Insurance Corporation

The Management M/S Radial Protection (Pvt) Ltd. Vs H. S. Prabhu

Mvp Aradhya, Vs Sri S.R. Umashankar IAS