Sri B P Sanantana Murthy Vs State of Karnataka

TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND EX OFFICIO DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE CITY DISTRICT-560008.

¶27

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560008

¶28

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560008

¶29

THE TALUK SURVEYOR OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560008

¶30

GIRIJA W/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS RESIDENT OF SY NO.161/5 B M KAVAL VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560040 ALSO RESIDING AT NO.654, 5TH CROSS, 17TH MAIN, 7TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560034

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY PROF. RAVI VARMA KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR

¶33

Ms. SRUTI CHAGANTI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R8;

¶34

SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 TO R7)

¶35

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35657-DB WA No. 1647 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.07.2025 PASSED IN WP No-18975/2022 (KLR-RES) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶38

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 T.M.NADAF)

¶42

The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.18975/ 2022, instituted by respondent No.8 herein.

¶43

2. The writ Court vide impugned judgment and order allowed the writ petition filed by petitioner and quashed order Annexure K passed by respondent No.4-The Technical Assistant to Deputy Commissioner and Ex-Officio Deputy Director of Land Records and the order Annexure Q passed by respondent No.6The Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk.

¶44

4 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:35657-DB WA No. 1647 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the

¶48

writ Court for the sake of convenience.

¶49

4. Heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri. Anoop Haranahalli, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Smt. Sruthi Chaganti, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8 and Sri M.N. Sudev Hegde, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 7.

¶50

5. On a short point, Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel, submits that, the property claimed by the appellant is Survey No.161/1A and the property of respondent No.8 herein is Survey No.161/5 situated at B.M. Kaval Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. He further submits that both lands are distinct and different properties and there is no common boundary between the property of the appellant and respondent No.8.

¶51

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced a sketch along with the memo dated 14.07.2026, showing the extent of land belonging to the appellant and the land of respondent No.8

¶52

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35657-DB WA No. 1647 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

herein. Copy of the same has been furnished to the contesting respondent No.8. Learned counsel for respondent No.8 does not dispute the sketch produced along with the memo.

¶55

7. In that view of the matter, as could be seen from the sketch, there cannot be any boundary dispute between the appellant and respondent No.8/petitioner in respect of their lands. There are three lands in between the land of the appellant and respondent No.8. In other words, the lands are not adjacent to one another. Even it is noticed that towards the Eastern portion there is a road, which separates the lands of the appellant with the adjacent lands.

¶56

8. It is germane to extract paragraph No.26 of the impugned order, wherein the writ Court has held that respondent No.3, while issuing direction to respondent No.5 has failed to take cognizance of a crucial fact namely, that Sy.No.161 had already undergone phodi operations and was subdivided into Sy.Nos.161/1, 161/2, 161/3, 161/4 and 161/5 as far back as in the year 1969-1970 and further order for phodi (sub-division) was under a mistaken assumption that the original Sy.No.161 continues to exist as a whole and undivided

¶57

6 -

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:35657-DB WA No. 1647 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

survey number in the revenue records. Paragraph No.26 of

¶61

the impugned order reads as follows:-

¶62

"26. Upon examining the two tables annexed to the order dated 11.10.2017, it becomes evident that respondent No.3, while issuing directions to respondent No.5, has failed to take cognizance of a crucial fact namely, that Sy.No.161 had already undergone phodi operations and was subdivided into Sy.Nos.161/1, 161/2, 161/3, 161/4, and 161/5 as far back as in the year 196970. Despite this undisputed factual position, respondent No.3 appears to have proceeded under a mistaken assumption that the original Sy.No.161 continues to exist as a whole and undivided survey number in the revenue records. This assumption is patently erroneous and inconsistent with the actual state of the records."

¶63

9. However, submission of Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior counsel is that, the appellant is restricting his claim only to the property in respect of land in Sy.No.161/1A, for the purpose of boundary and order thereon, which according to him has already been carried out, and he does not have any claim against the land of the petitioner/respondent in Sy.No.161/5. So far as the order passed by respondent Nos.4 and 6 in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.161, which would inter alia include lands in Sy.No.161/1A and 161/5 belonging to the

¶64

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:35657-DB WA No. 1647 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

appellant and respondent No.8 respectively are concerned, are set aside only to that extent. The order passed by the learned Single Judge insofar as Sy.No.138/1 is set aside inasmuch as the said survey number is not in dispute between the appellant and respondent No.8 herein.

¶67

10. With this modification in the impugned judgment and order the writ appeal is disposed of and the matter is remitted back to the concerned authorities to take proper decision in respect of phodi and boundaries only in respect of land in Sy.No.161/1A, as expeditiously as possible within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order without disturbing the boundaries of land in Sy.No.161/5.

¶68

11. It is needless to say that action be taken after adhering to

¶69

the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Rule, 1966.

¶70