Sri Subramanya P R Vs Sri Nagesha

SRI. SUBRAMANYA P R S/O. LATE. KOTE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, ACCU- FARMER NO. 64, 4^TH CROSS, MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, PANATHUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BANGALORE – 560 103.

¶11

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. NAGARAJU M C, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI. NAGESHA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52YEARS RESIDING AT NO.62, PANATHUR VILLAGE AND POST VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BANGALORE – 560 103.

¶15

…APPELLANT

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:3307-DB WA No. 584 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA

¶19

BENGALURU – 560 002.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION BANGALORE – 560 002.

¶21

THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR BANAGLORE EAST TALUK BANAGLORE – 560 036.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. M N SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R2 – R4)

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2025 IN WP No-8304/2025 (KLR-RES) AND DISMISSED THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶26

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:3307-DB WA No. 584 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

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

¶32

The present intra-Court appeal has been filed by the appellant who was the respondent No.4 before the Writ Court in W P No. 8304/2025, which was disposed of by the impugned order dated 25.03.2025.

¶33

The Assistant Commissioner had initiated suo motu proceedings. The appellant filed a writ petition in W P. No. 7918/2023 before this Court impugning the suo motu proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner in respect of the land bearing Survey No.54 situated at Panathur Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.

¶34

The case of the appellant /respondent No.4 before the Writ Court in W.P No.7918/2023 was that he was granted two(2) acres of land in Survey No.54, for which, Sugvali Chit was issued in his favour on 17.05.1978. It was also contented on behalf of the appellant that subsequently mutation proceedings had taken place but his name was not reflected in the RTC and despite several

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:3307-DB WA No. 584 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

representations, the Tahsildar did not take any action to enter his name.

¶39

In view of the aforesaid position the appellant/ respondent No.4 filed WP No.7918/2023. This Court vide order dated 11.04.2023 directed the Tahsildar to verify the grant and take appropriate action on the representation of the appellant/respondent No.4.

¶40

The Tahsildar, in compliance of the order dated 11.04.2026 passed in W.P No.7918/2023, came to the conclusion that the land in question was a Government Mufat Kaval land, and vide M.R. No.15/1980-81 the name of the appellant was ordered to be entered. Hence, the Tahsildar requested the Assistant Commissioner to initiate the proceedings under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘KLR Act’) and take further action. The Assistant Commissioner accordingly registered the appeal under Section 136(2) of the KLR Act and initiated the proceedings.

¶41

In the aforesaid proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, Sri. Nagesha, the petitioner in Writ

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:3307-DB WA No. 584 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Petition No. 8304/2025 claimed to be the original grantee of the land in Survey No.54 and made an application to implead himself as respondent before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner had rejected the request of Sri. Nagesha, the petitioner in W.P No.8304/2025. Aggrieved by the said order of rejecting the application for impleadment by the Assistant Commissioner, Sri Nagesha had filed writ petition in W.P.No.8304/2025 which came to be allowed and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the application for impleadment was set aside by the impugned order.

¶45

The learned Single Judge had directed the Assistant Commissioner to consider the plea of the Tahsildar and also hear the appellant herein as well as Sri. Nagesha and pass final order in the proceedings under Section 136(2) of the KLR Act.

¶46

Considering the nature of the order passed by the learned Single Judge that all the parties would be heard by the Assistant Commissioner for taking a final decision in

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:3307-DB WA No. 584 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

appeal under Section 136(2) of the KLR Act, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The order does not in any way is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant herein.

¶50

In view thereof, we dismiss this appeal.

¶51

We make it again clear that the Assistant Commissioner will hear the Tahsildar, Sri. Nagesha and the appellant herein before taking the final decision in pending appeal in the proceedings under Section 136(2) of the KLR Act.

¶52

In view of the dismissal of this writ appeal, pending IA’s, if any, stands disposed of.

¶53

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶54

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶55

UN

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Sri Subramanya P R v. Sri Nagesha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Subramanya P R v. Sri Nagesha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Santhosha S v Vs the State of Karnataka

Reviewing Committee/ Directors Committee Vs Sri. R Lakshminarayanappa

Smt Sunitha Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

High Court of Karnataka Vs Nithin Gowda J R

Sri. H.Jayarama Reddy Vs M/S. Radient Structures Private Limited

Sri R Shankar Vs State of Karnataka