Writ appeal by occupants challenging a Single Judge's order confirming mutation of land in Gangenahalli Village in favour of purchasers under registered sale deeds tracing to an occupancy grant. The Division Bench found no infirmity, noted the land was no longer Government land, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:27767-DB WA No. 1444 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1444 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka
HC-KAR
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:27767-DB WA No. 1444 of 2025
HC-KAR
HC-KAR
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2026:KHC:27767-DB WA No. 1444 of 2025
HC-KAR
SYED AMAN, S/O LATE SYED KHASIM SAB DEAD BY LR'S
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS. 8 TO 11 ARE RESIDING AT GANGENAHALLI VILLAGE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 562 130.
…RESPONDENTS
NC: 2026:KHC:27767-DB WA No. 1444 of 2025
HC-KAR
(BY SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MANJUNATH L.V., ADVOCATE FOR C/R5-R11)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.38522/2011(KLRRES) DATED:23.07.2025 AND GRANT FURTHER RELIEFS TO THE APPELLANTS AND ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL WITH COSTS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)
This intra-Court appeal is by respondents 12, 16, 18, 20, 24, 27, 29, 30, 34, 37, 39, 46, 48, 50, 54, 55, 56, 61, 62, 63, 66, 68, 70, 72, 75, 79, 81, 83, 84, 86, 87, 89, 91, 92, 96, 97, 98 & 101 in W.P.No.38522/2011, assailing the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Writ Court.
HC-KAR
allowed the Writ Petition, set-aside the order passed by the Revenue authorities sought in the prayer, confirming M.R No.6 of 11 of 1981-82 dated 18.03.1981 passed by
the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, changing the katha of the property bearing No.130 of Gangenahalli Village, Bengaluru South Taluk in favor of the petitioners.
before the Writ Court.
under:
HC-KAR
4.2 The case of the petitioners before the Writ Court was that, the land bearing Sy.No.130 of Gangenahalli Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk (erstwhile Magadi Taluk) was originally a Jodi Inam land. One Sri.R.G.Shamanna S/o.Gundurao, made an application seeking occupancy rights before the then Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition. The application came to be rejected. Against which, an appeal was preferred in No.532, 533 & 534/1966 before the Mysuru Revenue Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by means of order dated 29.11.1996 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition. Thereafter, the name of the R.G.Shamanna had been effected in Register No.VIII (Annexure-A) showing conferment of occupancy right and Mutation Register
NC: 2026:KHC:27767-DB WA No. 1444 of 2025
HC-KAR
in MR No.9/1968-69 and IL and RR at at Sl.No.744 as per Annexures-C and E.
HC-KAR
R.A.No.74/1992-1993. Respondent No.3 by his order
dated 28.08.1997 set-aside the mutation entry made
in favor of the petitioners and same was the subject matter before this Court in W.P.No.27047/1997 and other connected matters. This Court relegated the petitioners to approach the respondent No.2 under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 19641 by means of its order dated 23.07.1999.
has been filed against the order passed by the Revenue Authorities, which we have already extracted above.
respondents before the Writ Court was that they are
1 Act of 1964, for short
HC-KAR
in possession of the subject land and cultivating the
same. Their grievance is that the revenue entries were made in favor of the petitioners i.e., contesting respondents in this appeal, without due consideration
of the appellants' claim. However, apart from asserting possession and cultivation, the appellants have not produced any documentary evidence in support of their claim on which they are seeking to challenge the order passed by the Revenue Authorities.
NC: 2026:KHC:27767-DB WA No. 1444 of 2025
HC-KAR
has been re-granted by means of the Grant stated supra and the land having been conveyed under various sale deeds starting from Sri.R.G.Shamanna, lastly to the petitioners, cannot now be permitted to contend as Gomal Land belonging to the Government. The Writ Court has stated that the judgment cited by the contesting respondents/ appellants herein are not applicable to the case on hand and relying on the judgment stated in paragraph No.12 of its order, allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the orders called in question therein and confirmed the mutation in favor of the petitioners. Assailing the said order, the contesting respondents/appellants herein are in this appeal before us.
appearing for the appellants, Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri.Manjunath.L.V,
NC: 2026:KHC:27767-DB WA No. 1444 of 2025
HC-KAR
learned counsel for caveator/ respondents 5 to 11 and Sri.B.Ravindranath, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4.
HC-KAR
the order passed by the Writ Court, learned counsel for the appellants is unable to answer the same. However, he reiterated his submission that the appellants are in unauthorized occupation and their application in Form No.50 is pending for consideration.
NC: 2026:KHC:27767-DB WA No. 1444 of 2025
HC-KAR
Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE
TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2 ct-vn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Division Bench should interfere with the Writ Court's order confirming mutation in favour of the writ petitioners based on registered sale deeds.
Whether the appellants claiming unauthorized occupation with a pending Form No.50 application had locus standi to challenge the mutation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Srinivasa and others (38 appellants)
The State of Karnataka, represented by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department
The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District
The Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub Division
The Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk
Mubeena Banu and others (respondents 5-11)
D K Singh
T.M.Nadaf
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
