Sri Rajanna Vs the State of Karnataka

REP. BY HIS SPA HOLDER - MR. SANTHOSH KUMAR R. S/O. MR. RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT. GOBBARAGUNTE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110

¶14

(BY SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH V B., ADVOCATE)

¶15

…APPELLANT

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560 001

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT SIR. M. VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER

¶19

2 -

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:36787-DB WA No. 1078 of 2026

¶22

CNR: KAHC010239692026

¶23

PHODIUM BLOCK, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶24

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION DODDABALLAPOURA - 561 203. BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶25

THE TAHSILDAR DEVANAHALI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI - 562 110 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶26

SMT. PILLAMMA W/O. LATE B. MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

¶27

SRI. LAKSHMAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRs.,

¶28

SMT. ANITHA W/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶29

KUM. NANDINI, D/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶30

KUM. KUSUMA, D/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶31

R5 TO R8 ARE R/AT. NO.735, 3^RD CROSS, 23^RD WARD, CHAMRAJPETE, CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562101

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. K.N.PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R8)

¶34

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:36787-DB WA No. 1078 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

CNR: KAHC010239692026

¶37

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN W.P No. 38460/2016 (KLR) AND BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITIONS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶38

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

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶40

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶41

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

¶42

The present intra Court appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.38460/2016 (KLR-RR/SUR) instituted by the private respondent Nos.5 to 8 herein, praying for setting aside the order dated 26.04.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in R.P.No.72/2009-2010.

¶43

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court for the sake of convenience.

¶44

The dispute is in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.60/1 measuring an extent of 1 acre 17 guntas situated at Avathi

¶45

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:36787-DB WA No. 1078 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

CNR: KAHC010239692026

¶48

Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District (for brevity 'Subject Land').

¶49

The Tahsildar in Proceedings M.R.No.130/2006-2007 had rectified the name in the RTC extract. The said order was challenged in appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, who vide order dated 28.08.2009 set aside the order of the Tahsildar. The petitioners thereafter filed revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner had affirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Prior to the said proceedings were initiated before the revenue authorities respondent No.5 had filed O.S.No.763/2007,

¶50

seeking a decree of declaration by way of adverse possession. However, the suit was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit and thereafter, respondent No.5 had filed one more suit in O.S.No.118/2018 seeking the same relief as in O.S.No.763/2007. The learned Single Judge considering the fact that the question of title and ownership is subject matter of O.S.No.118/2018 passed the following order :-

¶51

5 -

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:36787-DB WA No. 1078 of 2026

¶54

CNR: KAHC010239692026

¶55

"ORDER

¶56

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶57

ii. The impugned order dated 28.08.2009 passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-'M' and order dated 26.04.2016 passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-'Q' are hereby quashed.

¶58

iii. The revenue entries shall restore in the name of the petitioners.

¶59

iv. The parties are at liberty to agitate their grievance before the Civil Court in the pending suit.

¶60

v. The parties shall maintain status-quo in respect of possession of the subject land till the disposal of the pending suit."

¶61

While setting aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, directed that the revenue entries is to be restored in the names of the petitioners as per the order passed by the Tahsildar. However, these revenue entries would be subject to the final outcome of the civil suit. So far as the possession of the subject land is concerned, status quo has been ordered till disposal of the suit.

¶62