Dismissed¶7

The State of Karnataka v. Sri. Syed Mastan

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2026WA/258/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal by State of Karnataka, Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner Kolar and Tahsildar Mulabagil against Single Judge order 31.08.2023 in WP No.50772/2014; cancellation of revenue entries since 1960 over 20 acres in Sy.Nos.103, 103/4-103/7, Jamanhalli Village, Avani Hobli, Mulabagil Taluk, Kolar; Section 25 Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1961; action within reasonable time; delay of almost 100 years; fraudulent entries without grant; reliance on C.G. Jagdish W.A.No.387/2023; Sideshwar Yuvak Mandal ILR 1981 KAR 1309; writ appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the writ appeal stands dismissed, leaving intact the learned Single Judge's order dated 31.08.2023 in WP No.50772/2014 setting aside the revenue authorities' cancellation orders. ¶7

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Syed Mastan — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the revenue entries standing in the name of the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest (in existence since 1960) could be cancelled as fraudulent when the underlying grant records, made some 90-100 years earlier, were not available/produced. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

It is not disputed that the revenue entries stood in the name of the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest since 1960.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Action under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961 must be taken within reasonable time; a delay of almost 100 years in acting against the entries is impermissible.

¶6

Key takeaways

The learned Single Judge rightly allowed the writ petition; the Division Bench has no scope or ground to interfere with his work, and consequently the writ appeal is dismissed.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Division Bench: D K Singh & T.M.Nadaf JJ.), WA No. 258 of 2025 (decided 15.04.2026): The State and Kolar revenue authorities appealed against the order dated 31.08.2023 in WP No.50772/2014, by which the learned Single Judge had set aside the Tahsildar's order dated 12.11.2010 (LND/CR/15/2008-09), the Assistant Commissioner, Anekal's order dated 27.12.2013 (RA No.266/2012-13) and the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 02.07.2014 (RA No.60/2013-14) cancelling revenue entries — in existence since 1960 — over 20 acres (5 acres each in Sy.Nos.103, 103/4, 103/5, 103/6 and 103/7), Jamanhalli Village, Avani Hobli, Mulabagil Taluk, Kolar District. Held: taking action under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961 must be within reasonable time and there cannot be a delay of almost 100 years; the view was strengthened by the Coordinate Bench decision in C.G.Jagdish vs. State of Karnataka (W.A.No.387/2023, disposed 23.11.2023). Writ appeal dismissed; pending I.As., if any, disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:20436-DB WA No. 258 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO. 258 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 101.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB DIVISION, KOLAR-563 101.

¶14

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, MULABAGIL TALUK, MULABAGIL-563 131, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶16

(BY SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA)

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

AND:

¶19

SRI SYED MASTAN, SINCE DEAD BY LRS.,

¶20

NASREEN THAJ, W/O. LATE SYED MASTHAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶21

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:20436-DB WA No. 258 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

SHAMA SULTHANA. M, D/O. SYED MASTHAN, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.

¶24

SYED MUZAMMIL. M, S/O. SYED MASTHAN, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.

¶25

SYED ABRAR, S/O. SYED MASTHAN, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.

¶26

ALL ARE R/AT NO. 64, DARGHAMOHALLA, VIJANAPURA, DOORVANINAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 016.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI N S SRIRAJ GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4)

¶29

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a) CALL FOR THE RECORDS; b) ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL; c) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.08.2023 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU IN WP No.50772/2014.

¶30

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶31

and

¶32

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

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

¶35

The Writ Appeal came to be filed by the State

¶36

authorities who are respondents in the Writ Petition challenging the impugned orders passed by the Tahsildar

¶37

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20436-DB WA No. 258 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

dated 12.11.2010 in LND/CR/15/2008-09 and the order dated 27.12.2013 in RA No.266/2012-13 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Anekal as well as the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 02.07.2014 in RA No.60/2013-14. The impugned orders passed by the Revenue Authorities had affected in cancelling the revenue entries in favour of the petitioners in respect of 20 acres of land consisting of 5 acres in each Sy.No.103, New Sy.No.103/4, Sy.No.103/5, Sy.No.103/6 and Sy.No.103/7 situated at Jamanhalli Village, Avani Hobli, Mulabagil Taluk, Kolar District.

¶40

The learned Single Judge having considered the

¶41

case and noted that the land was granted to the forefathers of the petitioners way back in the year 1951. The predecessor-in-interest of petitioners had participated in the proceedings of the year 2011. Consequently, the grant entries were made in Index of Land Records (ILR), which were also referred to by the Assistant Commissioner and these entries related to a period prior to 1970.

¶42

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20436-DB WA No. 258 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

The learned Single Judge, therefore, has

¶45

pointed that the land was to be recorded in the name of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in pursuant to the land grant proceedings of the year 1921 and in the year 2010, the Tahsildar sought to reopen those proceedings. It is further submitted that the petitioners could not produce the grant records around 90 years from the date when the grant was made but there were revenue entries to that effect and therefore mere absence of grant, the revenue entry could not be said to be fraudulent. The entries were in existence right from 1960 onwards. In view of the aforesaid, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

¶46

After hearing the learned AGA, he submits that

¶47

in the revenue records except for the revenue entries nothing is available and how the revenue entries came to be made in the name of the predecessor’s interest of the petitioners is not coming forth from the record available. It

¶48

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20436-DB WA No. 258 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

appears that the entries were fraudulently made in the name of the predecessor-in-interest without there being any grant.

¶51

Our view strengthens with the Judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

¶52

C.G.JAGDISH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND

¶53

OTHERS¹ . In the said Judgment, the coordinate Bench of this Court at Paragraph Nos.3 and 4 has held as under:

¶54

"3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Officials Respondents, we decline indulgence in the matter inasmuch as a Conversion Order which was in existence for the last quarter century could not have been casually rescinded by the Deputy Commissioner especially, when there was no plausible explanation for the long delay brooked in laying the challenge. Secondly, the inherent power vested in a Revenue Court by virtue of Section 25 of the 1964 Act could not have been invoked, even if we agree that the order of conversion was statutorily appealable. A resort to inherent power is not like a drug of choice

¶55

1 W.A.No.387/2023 (disposed on 23.11.2023)

¶56

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:20436-DB WA No. 258 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

for a physician. By its very text, the power under the provision scarcely avail. The Deputy Commissioner admittedly is not the Appellate Authority in matters like this and therefore, he could not have invoked Section 25 as if he was sitting in appeal. This view gains support from SIDDESHWAR YUVAK MANDAL vs. STATE & ANR., ILR 1981 KAR 1309 .

¶59

4. Added, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that whatever grievance the appellant can have against the Conversion Order can be considered only after he established title to the land in question. Thus, he has not foreclosed the issue. Therefore, much grievance cannot be raised against the impugned order which has brought about a just result by balancing the competing claims of the rival parties

¶60

6. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the

¶61

judgment supra, observed that in the absence of plausible explanation for the long delay brooked in laying the challenge. Further it has been observed that there is a power enjoined under Section 25 of the 1964 Act could not have been invoked as the power under the provision can be scarcely availed. However, it is not disputed that the

¶62

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:20436-DB WA No. 258 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

entries stood in the name of the predecessor-in-interest since 1960. Taking action under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961 must be within reasonable time and there cannot be a delay of almost 100 years.

¶65

We, therefore, are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition which does not give us any scope and ground to interfere with his work. Therefore, the writ appeal stands dismissed .

¶66

In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending I.As, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶67

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶68

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶69

¶70

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

The State of Karnataka v. Sri. Syed Mastan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Sri. Syed Mastan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Karnataka Vs Shri. Narayanaswamy

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. C. Ramakrishna

M/S Shekar Builders Vs Sri S K Venkatesh

Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Vs Avenue Supermarts Ltd.

Smt B S Leelavathi Vs Ramakrishna Reddy

Smt.Arathi Krishna Vs Sri.R.Raghu