Sri Mohammed Mukthar Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI.MOHAMMED MUKTHAR AHMED, S/O LATE MOHAMMED ABDULLA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/NO 290 3^RD CROSS, B' BLOCK, NEAR MASHALLAH MASJID, SUBHASH NAGAR, BEGUR, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE - 560 068.

¶10

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SRI. NISAR AHMED, S/O LATE MOHAMMED ABDULLA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/A NO 395 'A' BLOCK, NEAR AYAPPA TEMPLE, SUBHASH NAGAR, BEGUR, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE - 560 068.

¶12

SRI. MOHAMED SARDAR @ PEER KHAN, S/O LATE MOHAMMED ABDULLA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/ NO 733 NEAR MASHALLAH MASJID, SUBHASH NAGAR, BEGUR, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE - 560 068.

¶13

2 -

¶14

NC: 2026:KHC:33995-DB WA No. 424 of 2024

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

APPELLANT 1 TO 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. MIE RAZA ALI S/O MIR HASAN RAZA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A NO 366, 8^TH MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, VIVEK NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 047.

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY MS. HEENA S.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDPASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶21

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU - 570 001

¶22

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MYSORE SUB-DIVISION, MYSORE - 570 001.

¶23

THE TAHSILDAR, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU - 570 001.

¶24

SMT. NINGAMMA, W/O LATE PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 3733, BASAMMAGARADI ROAD, VEERANAGERE, LASHKAR MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 001.

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:33995-DB WA No. 424 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MUDA), JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, CHAMARAJAPURA, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU - 570 005.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1, SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R6, VIDE ORDER DATED 12.02.2026 R5 IS DELETED)

¶31

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:20.11.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP No.19492/2022 AND ETC.,

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

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

¶36

The present intra Court appeal has been filed

¶37

impugning the order dated 20.11.2023 passed the Writ Court in W.P.No.19492/2022 filed by the appellants.

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:33995-DB WA No. 424 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

The appellants have filed the Writ Petition

¶42

challenging the order dated 25.05.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District in R.A.P.No.18/2018, whereby the revision application filed

¶43

by the appellants/petitioners came to be dismissed vide order dated 07.08.2017, whereby the order passed by the Tahsildar in R.A.P proceedings was confirmed. The petitioners claim to be the owners of 25 Guntas of land in Sy.No.87/1 situated at Belavatta Village, Mysuru Taluk. They also claim to be the owners of 6¹ / 4 guntas each, by virtue of Sale Deed dated 03.05.1973 from Puttaswamy.

¶44

According to the petitioners these 25 guntas of

¶45

land was left out from the total land in Sy.No.87/1 from the acquisition proceedings which were completed way back in the year 1966. However, the petitioners/appellants have not produced the Preliminary and Final Notification and have withheld the relevant information from the Court. In the absence of Preliminary and Final Notification, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the

¶46

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:33995-DB WA No. 424 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

petitioners that only 01 Acre 15 Guntas, out of 2 Acres of land in Sy.No.87/1 was acquired way back in the year 1966.

¶49

The Tahsildar vide order dated 07.08.2017 in R.A.P proceedings has specifically held that the entire land in Sy.No.87/1 was acquired and compensation even for 25 Guntas of land was paid.

¶50

According to the petitioners/appellants, they

¶51

became the owners of 25 Guntas of land in Sy.No.87/1 on the strength of the registered sale deed, which was executed by the owner in the year 1973.

¶52

The petitioners have got Sale Deed executed in their favour in the year 1973. We fail to understand that what prevented the petitioners to get the revenue entries changed in their name soon after the execution of the registered sale deed and why they waited for 34 long years. The Writ Court considering all these facts, dismissed the Writ Petition and affirmed the order passed

¶53