Allowed

Mr. Chandranna v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2026WP/24011/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land granted in 1978-79 to petitioners' ancestors was confirmed by the Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) proceedings. The court held the subsisting grant could not be allotted to BMTC or other bodies, quashed the impugned office memoranda and directed entry of the petitioners' names in revenue records.

What did the court decide?

Impugned office memoranda dated 27.12.2008, 12.09.2017 and 01.02.2019 quashed; mandamus to Tahsildar, Yalahanka to enter petitioners' names in revenue records within two months.

Mr. Chandranna Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 23986 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)

¶9

C/W

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 23050 OF 2022 (KLR-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 24000 OF 2022 (KLR-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 24011 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)

¶11

IN WP No. 23986/2022

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MR. THIMMARAYAPPA S/O LATE BYRANNA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/AT NAGADASANAHALLI, YALAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN-560064.

¶15

MRS. SHAILA W/O LATE MANJUNATH, DAUGHTER IN LAW OF LATE GARE RAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NAGADASANAHALLI, YALAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN-560064.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SRI. NAGAJJANAVAR PAVAN MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU -560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶24

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU -560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶25

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU -560009.

¶26

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN-I, BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU -560009.

¶27

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU -560009.

¶28

THE TAHASILDAR MINI VIDHANASOUDHA,

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

YALAHANKA, NES OFFICE ROAD, BENGALURU -560064.

¶32

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, 7^TH CROSS ROAD, YELAHANKA SATELLITE TOWN YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560064.

¶33

THE CHIEF TRAFFIC CONTROLLER CENTRAL OFFICE, BMTC, SHANTI NAGARAM, BENGALURU-560027.

¶34

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DIVISION, 2^ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTI NAGAR, K H ROAD, BENGALURU-560027.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R7 & R9; SRI. P.D. SURANA, ADVOCATE FOR R8)

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-M PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.LND(NA)CR/299/18-19 DATED 01.02.2019 ANNEXURE-N PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.LND(NA) CR/275/18-19 DATED 01.02.2019, ANNEXURE-P PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.LND(NA)CR/261/17-18 DATED 12.09.2017 AND ANNEXURE-Q ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.LND(NA)CR/29/08-09 DATED 27.12.2008 MENTIONED IN THE MR 26/2008-2009 DATED 29.06.2009; DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.6 TO ENTER THE NAMES OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE REVENUE RECORDS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE LANDS.

¶41

IN WP NO. 23050/2022

¶42

BETWEEN:

¶43

MR. N.V. RAMAIAH SON OF LATE VEERANNA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. SMT. KEMPAMMA W/O LATE N.V. RAMAIAH DIED ON LONG BACK

¶44

1(a). SMT. ANUSUYAMMA D/O LATE N.V. RAMAIAH W/O SRI. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT NAGADASANAHALLI YALAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK BENGALURU URBAN - 560 064.

¶45

1(b). SRI. THYAGARAJU S/O LATE N.V. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NAGADASANAHALLI YALAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK BENGALURU URBAN - 560 064.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

1(c). SRI. DODDEGOWDA

¶50

S/O LATE N.V. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NAGADASANAHALLI YALAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK BENGALURU URBAN - 560 064.

¶51

1(d). SMT. GAYATHRI D/O LATE N.V. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NAGADASANAHALLI YALAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK BENGALURU URBAN - 560 064.

¶52

MRS. PAVITRA DAUGHTER OF H. NARAYANAPPA WIFE OF RAJKUMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NAGADASANAHALLI YALAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK BENGALURU-560064.

¶53

...PETITIONERS

¶54

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R7 & R9; SRI. P.D. SURANA, ADVOCATE FOR R8)

¶55

AND:

¶56

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶57

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶61

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶62

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU-560009.

¶63

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN -I BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU-560009.

¶64

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU-560009.

¶65

THE TAHSILDAR MINI VIDHANASOUDHA YALAHANKA NES OFFICE ROAD BENGALURU-560064.

¶66

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT 7^TH CROSS ROAD, YELAHANKA SATELLITE TOWN YELAHANKA

¶67

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

BENGALURU-560064.

¶71

THE CHIEF TRAFFIC CONTROLLER CENTRAL OFFICE BMTC SHANTI NAGARM BENGALURU-560027.

¶72

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DIVISION 2^ND FLOOR BMTC BUILDING SHANTI NAGAR K H ROAD BENGALURU-560027.

¶73

...RESPONDENTS

¶74

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R7 & R9; SRI. P.D. SURANA, ADVOCATE FOR R8)

¶75

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-M PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO. L.N.D(N.A)C.R/299/18-19 DATED 01.02.2019, ANNX-N PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO. L.N.D(N.A)C.R/275/18-19 DATED 01.02.2019, ANNEXURE-P PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO. L.N.D(N.A)C.R/261/17-18 DTD. 12.09.2017 AND ANNEXURE-Q ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.L.N.D(N.A)C.R/29/08-09 DATED 27.12.2008 MENTION IN THE MR 26/2008-2009 DATED 29.06.2009; DIRECT RESPONDENT O.6 TO ENTER THE NAMES OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE REVENUE

¶76

NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶77

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

RECORDS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE LANDS.

¶80

IN WP NO. 24000/2022

¶81

BETWEEN:

¶82

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE N P NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NAGADASANAHALLI, YALAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN-560064.

¶83

MR. NARAYANA RAO S/O BYROJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NAGADASANAHALLI, YALAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN-560064.

¶84

...PETITIONERS

¶85

(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SABARAD AVINASH, ADVOCATE)

¶86

AND:

¶87

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶88

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022

¶89

AND 1 OTHER

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶92

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶93

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009.

¶94

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN-I, BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009.

¶95

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009.

¶96

THE TAHASILDAR MINI VIDHANASOUDHA, YALAHANKA, NES OFFICE ROAD, BENGALURU-560064.

¶97

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, 7^TH CROSS ROAD, YELAHANKA SATELLITE TOWN, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560064.

¶98

10 -

¶99

NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶100

HC-KAR

¶101

THE CHIEF TRAFFIC CONTROLLER CENTRAL OFFICE, BMTC, SHANTI NAGARAM, BENGALURU-560027.

¶102

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DIVISION, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTI NAGAR, K H ROAD, BENGALURU-560027

¶103

...RESPONDENTS

¶104

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R7 & R9; SRI. P.D. SURANA, ADVOCATE FOR R8)

¶105

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-M PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.LND(NA)CR.299/18-19 DATED 01.02.2019, ANNEXURE-N PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.LND(NA)CR.275/18-19 DATED 01.02.2019, ANNEXURE-P PASSED BY RESPONDENTN O.3 OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.LND(NA)CR/261/17-18 DATED 12.09.2017 AND ANNEXURE-Q ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.LND(NA) CR.29/08-09 DATED 27.12.2008 MENTIONED IN THE MR 26/2008-2009 DATED 29.06.2009; DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.6 TO ENTER THE NAMES OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE REVENUE RECORDS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE LANDS.

¶106

IN WP NO. 24011/2022

¶107

BETWEEN:

¶108

MR. CHANDRANNA S/O LATE P. ANJINAPPA,

¶109

11 -

¶110

NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NAGADASANAHALLI, YALAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN-560064.

¶113

MR. ASHOK S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NAGADASANAHALLI, YALAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN-560064.

¶114

MRS. SHANTABAI W/O KRISHNOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NAGADASANAHALLI, YALAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN-560064.

¶115

...PETITIONERS

¶116

(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SABARAD AVINASH, ADVOCATE)

¶117

AND:

¶118

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶119

12 -

¶120

NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶123

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009.

¶124

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN-I, BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009.

¶125

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009.

¶126

THE TAHASILDAR MINI VIDHANASOUDHA, YALAHANKA, NES OFFICE ROAD, BENGALURU-560064.

¶127

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, 7^TH CROSS ROAD, YELAHANKA SATELLITE TOWN YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560064.

¶128

13 -

¶129

NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶130

HC-KAR

¶131

THE CHIEF TRAFFIC CONTROLLER CENTRAL OFFICE, BMTC, SHANTI NAGARAM, BENGALURU-560027.

¶132

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DIVISION, 2^ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTI NAGAR, K H ROAD, BENGALURU-560027.

¶133

...RESPONDENTS

¶134

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R7 & R9; SRI. P.D. SURANA, ADVOCATE FOR R8)

¶135

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ANNEXURE-9 PASSED BY R3 VIDE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.LND(NA)CR.299/18-19 DATED 01.02.2019, ANNEXURE-Q PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.LND(NA)CR.275/18-19 DATED 01.02.2019, ANNEXURE-R PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.LND(NA)CR/261/17-18 DATED 12.09.2017 AND ANNEXURE-S ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.LND(NA) CR.29/08-09 DATED 27.12.2008 MENTIONED IN THE MR 26/2008-2009 DATED 29.06.2009; DIRECT RESPONDENT NO.6 TO ENTER THE NAMES OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE REVENUE RECORDS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE LANDS.

¶136

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶137

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶138

14 -

¶139

NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶140

HC-KAR

¶141

CAV ORDER

¶142

In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are assailing the Office Memorandum No. L.N.D(N.A) C.R./299/2018-19 dated 01.02.2019; Office Memorandum No. L.N.D(NA) C.R./ 275/2018-19 dated 01.02.2019; Office Memorandum No. L.N.D(NA) C.R./261/2017-18 dated 12.09.2017 and Office Memorandum No. L.N.D(NA) C.R./ 29/2008-09 dated 27.12.2008 passed by respondent No.3- Deputy Commissioner inter-alia sought for direction to the respondent-authorities to enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records.

¶143

Relevant facts for the adjudication of these writ petitions are that the petitioners and their ancestors (Gare Ramaiyya and eight others) claim to be the grantees of the land bearing Sy.No.11 of Nagadasanahalli village, Yalahanka Hobli, Bangalore North (Additional Taluk) Bangalore District to an

¶144

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶145

extent of 18 acres. It is further stated that, proceedings of the Government for the purpose of granting of land to Sri. Gare Ramaiyya and 8 others is produced at Annexure-A. Thereafter, Grant Certificate was issued followed by certificate produced at Annexure-B to E respectively. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the land in question and the index of land and record of rights are produced at Annexure-F and G respectively. It is further case of the petitioners that, petitioners came to know that some of the land grabbers and officials of the Government Department are interfering with the process for entry of their names in the revenue records and as such, came to know that, the portion of the land belonging to the petitioners have been allotted for the purpose of construction of BMTC Depot and others Government offices as per Annexure- H. In response to the same,

¶146

NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶147

16 -

¶148

the petitioners came to know about proceedings before the respondent No.4, in RRT 87 /2010-11 connected with RRT 102/2010-11, RRT(2) (NA) CR 1 / 2015-16 to RRT (2)(NA) CR 5/2015-16 and as such, the petitioners were impleaded in the above proceedings and submitted all the relevant documents to establish their right over the property. The respondent No.4, after examining the records, passed order dated 04.01.2022 wherein it is held that the grant made in favour of the petitioners was held to be valid. Thereafter the petitioners came to know that, the land in question has been allotted in favour of various Departments as per Annexure- M, N, P and Q. It is further stated that the petitioners have approached the respondent-authorities by way of representation dated 25.07.2022 and 16.08.2022, along with relevant documents to cancel the grant made in favour of various Departments, so also, to

¶149

17 - NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶150

enter their names in the revenue records. Despite the representation has been made by the petitioners and same has not been considered by the respondentauthorities and feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein have presented these writ petitions.

¶151

I heard Sri. P. P. Hedge, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Nagajjanavar Pavan Manjunath, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri. Spoorthy Hegde, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and Sri. P.D. Surana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8-BMTC.

¶152

It is argued by Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that, the respondent-authorities have granted land bearing Sy.No. 11 of Nagadasanahalli, Yalahanka Hobli, Bangalore North (Addl) Taluk, Bangalore District, in

¶153

18 - NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶154

favour of the petitioners and their legal representatives of the petitioners, way back in 197879 after following due process of law and as such, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the land for more than four decades, and that apart, the respondent No.9, vide letter dated 06.08.2021, confirmed the grant of land made in favour of petitioners and therefore, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that, the impugned orders passed by the respondent-authorities requires to be set aside in these writ petitions. It is also submitted that the original grantees have already paid the upset price to the competent authority way back in 1979 and the respondent No.4, after conducting a detailed enquiry, has passed a reasoned order confirming the title of the petitioners, in respect of subject land as per order dated 04.01.2022, and therefore, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶155

19 - NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶156

submitted that impugned orders dated 01.02.2019 , 12.09.2017 and 27.12.2008, are requires to be set aside by this Court.

¶157

Referring to the finding recorded by the respondent No.4, order dated 04.01.2022, it is argued by the learned Senior Counsel that, grant made in favour of the petitioners has been confirmed and as such, without cancelling the grant made in favour of petitioners, allotting a portion of the land to the respective Department by the State Government is without following the due process of law, requires to be set aside in these writ petitions. Accordingly, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners sought for interference of this court.

¶158

Per contra, Sri. Spoorthy Hegde, learned High

¶159

Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State sought to justify the impugned

¶160

20 - NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶161

orders passed by the respondent-authorities and further contended that, as there is dispute with regard to grant made in favour of the petitioners which requires to be agitated before the competent authority and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petitions.

¶162

Sri. P.D. Surana, learned counsel for

¶163

appearing for respondent No.8-BMTC, reiterates the averments made in the statement of objections filed by the respondent-Corporation, and further contended that, the land in question is located within 18 km from the boundaries of BBMP and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petitions. Learned cousnel further argued that the petitioners herein have filed W.P.No.8594-8605 of 2015, wherein, this Court directed the jurisdictional Thasildar therein to place a report along with the applications before the respondent No.5-Committee therein for regularisation

¶164

21 - NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶165

and as such, it is argued that no grant has been made

¶166

in favour of petitioners. Learned counsel further argued that, the respondent-State has allotted 2 acres 35 guntas in Sy.No.11 of Nagadasanahalli village, in favour of respondent-Corporation and as such, the respondent -Corporation has paid Rs.44,54,120/- to the Government and thereafter, the land has been transferred to the respondent-Corporation and depot has been constructed in the said land and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petitions.

¶167

To buttress his arguments, Sri. P.D. Surana, learned counsel for the respondent No.8-BMTC places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam and another vs.

¶168

Jaswant Singh and another reported in (2006) 11 SCC 465 and in the case of The Ramjas Foundation and others vs. Union of India and others reported

¶169

22 -

¶170

NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶171

in AIR 1993 SC 852 and submitted that, there is inordinate delay in challenging the impugned orders by the petitioners and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.

¶172

In reply to the same, Sri P. P. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, strenuously refer to the finding recorded by the respondent No.4-Deputy Commissioner on order dated 04.01.2022, and contended that the said finding has reached finality and no cancellation order has been passed by the respondent-authorities and therefore, sought for direction to the respondent-authorities to enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records as per the observation made by this court in W.P.No.85948605 of 2015. Sri P. P. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that question in writ petitions is to consider the

¶173

23 - NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶174

representation in respect of the land in question and

¶175

as such, the petitioners have not suppressed any material before this Court.

¶176

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perusal of the records would indicate that, the petitioners and their ancestors have made applications to the respondent-authorities for grant of land bearing Sy.No.11, of Nagadasanahalli Village, Yalahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, as unauthorised occupants seeking regularisation of Gomal land, which is reflected in Annexure-A to the writ petition. It is also noted that the, applications have been accepted and Grant Certificate has been issued and same are produced at Annexure-B to E. It is also to be noted that the petitioners and their ancestors are in cultivation of the land in question. The petitioners

¶177

24 - NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶178

have also produced the Index of land and record of rights to substantiate their rights in respect of land in question. It is the grievance of the petitioners that, despite aforementioned documents stand in the name of the petitioners, however, some third parties have initiated the entry of their names in the subject land and as such, proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act was initiated by the respondent No.4, in respect of subject land in RRT 87/2010-11 connected with RRT 102/10-11, RRT (2)(NA) CR 1/2015-16 to RRT (2) (NA) CR 5/2015-16 at order dated 04.01.2022. The petitioners have impleaded in the aforementioned proceedings and filed all the documents pertaining the land in question including the grant records. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.6, has addressed letter dated 11.05.2021 stating that the portion of the land in question has been allotted in favour of BMTC and such other statutory authorities. In this regard, the

¶179

25 - NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶180

petitioners have approached the police authorities, Karnataka Lokayuktha and His Excellency Governor of Karnataka as to the falsification of the documents by the respondent -authorities and the private interested parties. It is also forthcoming from the writ petitions that the aforementioned proceedings initiated under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, wherein the petitioners have been impleaded, as respondent Nos. 7 to 15 therein and respondent No.4 completed the entire enquiry and arrived at a conclusion that, the grant made in favour of the petitioners was held to be valid and the persons who claim the right over the property illegally and their claim was rejected by the respondent No.4. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract, the findings of the respondent No.4 at order dated 04.01.2022, which reads as under:

¶181

NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶182

26 -

¶183

HC-KAR

¶184

" During the pendency of the above proceedings the respondents No.7 to 15 impleaded themselves in this proceedings and they contended that, as per the O.M. dated 15.05.1978 vide No. LND:SR(3)/51/7778, issued by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk, O.M. dated 20.03.1979 issued by the LND:CR (3);150/1977-78 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru Sub Division, Bengaluru and O.M. dated 13.12.1978 in No. B.Dis.LND. (3) SR/282/78-79 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Bengaluru and O.M. dated20.12.1979 vide No. B.Dis. LND/SR(3)201/78-79 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru substantiate that, Gare Ramaiah and Others totally 09 persons have been granted with different extent of land in subject survey numbers they have been represented by the Respondent No. 7 to 15 herein. To substantiate the same, they have produced the certified copy of the grant Records issued by the Office of the Regional Commissioner, Bengaluru. Further, the original grant records also made available to this authority, by perusing the same it is confirmed the genuineness of the claim made by respondents No. 7 to 15 herein based on the above grant records.

¶185

Further it reveals that, while conducting enquiry regarding the fraud played by the respondent No. 1 to 6, the Police authorities also observed in the proceedings No. A5/PS/H/Arji/25/2019 that, the above grantees are in possession and enjoyment of their respective portion of land in the subject survey number, which is evident by the letter dated 10.02.2020 forwarded by the Police Sub Inspector, Rajankunte Police Station to the Police Commissioner, Bengaluru District.

¶186

27 -

¶187

NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶188

HC-KAR

¶189

Further it reveals that, in response to the letter forwarded by the Tahsildar, Yelahanka Taluk dated 06/08.2021 in No. Abilekha/Vi.Va/22/2021-22, wherein it is confirmed that the land in question are granted in favour of Gare Ramaiah and 8 others as per the order in LND(3)SR/282/78-79 and even the said grant records available in the office bundle for the year 1978-79. It is also found that, the certified copies also issued."

¶190

(Emphasis supplied by me)

¶191

A perusal of the aforementioned findings indicates that respondent No.4-the Special Deputy Commissioner, after conducting a detailed enquiry and examining the original records had arrived at a conclusion that the grant made in favour of the petitioners is held to be valid. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that as the said grant, having been validly made in favour of the petitioners' ancestors, cannot be interfered with by the respondentauthorities by issuing impugned orders. Furthermore, the petitioners are in possession of the land in question, and the grant continues to remain valid as

¶192

28 - NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶193

on this date, and these grants having not been cancelled by the competent authority till date, the respondent-authorities have no authority in law to allot the very same land to BMTC or any other statutory body. Accordingly, I find considerable force in the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners.

¶194

Though the learned counsel for the respondent No.8-BMTC submitted that there is delay in challenging the impugned orders, however, as the grant made in favour of the ancestors of the petitioners is subsisting as on today and confirmed by the respondent No.4, as per order dated 04.01.2022 and therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No8-BMTC cannot be accepted. In an identical circumstances, this

¶195

29 -

¶196

NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶197

court in W.P.No.43401-43401 of 2018 disposed of on

¶198

25.10.2019 at paragraphs 6 and 7 held as follows:

¶199

"6. Having heard Sri A.S.Ponnanna, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners and Sri Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondents, it requires to be noticed that proceedings which are initiated under Section 136(3) of the Act was to ascertain genuineness of the grant made in favour of petitioners after a lapse of almost 40 years. It is the specific case of the petitioners throughout that grant was in the year 1978 and even in the proceedings which were initiated against petitioners by respondents, documents which came to be relied upon by petitioners to substantiate their claim came to be referred to State Forensic Science Labouratory, Madivala and a report was submitted by said authority confirming genuineness of the grant. In the words of Special Deputy Commissioner who conducted proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act, finding recorded on the issue of genuineness of the documents, is extracted herein below for immediate reference:

¶200

“By going through xxx respondents. Further, respondents produced the certified copy of the report submitted by the state forensic science

¶201

NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶202

30 -

¶203

HC-KAR

¶204

laboratory, Madivala, dated 03-09-2013 which was submitted at the instance of the letter dated 06-062013 written by the Tahsildar, wherein he sought for examination of genuineness of the grant records made in favour of the respondents herein in respect of the subject land. The said report also confirmed the genuineness of the grant records.

¶205

The Tahsildar in his letter dated 19-09-2015 also confirmed that the Special Deputy Commissioner has issued an Official Memorandum dated 23-091978 and gave a direction to the Assistant Commissioner for necessary steps to grant the land measuring to an extent of 4 Acre each in the name of the respondents herein. Further he also confirms the report submitted by the forensic lab.

¶206

The documents available on record clearly establish the genuineness of the grant made in favour of the respondents herein. Therefore the respondents are entitled to get the revenue records in their favour.”

¶207

Above finding recorded by the Special Deputy Commissioner in the proceedings initiated under Section 136(3) of the Act would clearly indicate that records came to be relied upon by petitioners has already been held to be genuine, not tainted or

¶208

NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶209

31 -

¶210

HC-KAR

¶211

concocted and fabricated as sought to be made out by the revenue authorities. Special Deputy Commissioner after having already recorded a finding with regard to the genuineness of the contents of documents, Tahsildar cannot now sit in judgment over said finding to doubt the genuineness of said documents, which precise exercise has already been undertaken by Tahsildar under the impugned endorsement and it would not stand the test of law and even on facts, it is liable to be quashed for reasons indicated herein above.

¶212

7. That apart, where grant is made and genuineness of said grant is sought to be questioned by the revenue authorities, steps will have to be taken within a reasonable time and not after inordinate delay. Under similar circumstances, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SANTOSH SHIVGONDA PATIL

¶213

& OTHERS vs BALASAHEB TUKARAM SHEVALE & OTHERS reported in (2009)9 SCC 352 has held that where no time limit is prescribed for exercise of revisional power under a statute, it should be exercised within a reasonable period. The revisional power under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 exercised by authorities came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court and held that it has to be exercised within a period of 3 years. It was found that said power was exercised

¶214

NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶215

32 -

¶216

HC-KAR

¶217

after a long lapse of time and as such invoking revisional power was held as within a reasonable time. It was further held:

¶218

“11 . It seems to be fairly settled that if a statute does not prescribe the time-limit for exercise of revisional power, it does not mean that such power can be exercised at any time; rather it should be exercised within a reasonable time. It is so because the law does not expect a settled thing to be unsettled after a long lapse of time. Where the legislature does not provide for any length of time within which the power of revision is to be exercised by the authority, suo motu or otherwise, itis plain that exercise of such power within reasonable time is inherent therein.”

¶219

For this proposition, judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS vs BHATINDA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. reported in (2007)11 SCC 363, JOINT COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AND ANOTHER vs D NARSING RAO AND OTHERS reported in (2015)3 SCC 695, IBRAHIMPATNAM TALUK VYAVASAYA COOLIE SANGHAM vs K SURESH & OTHERS reported in (2003)7 SCC 667 can also be looked up."

¶220

33 - NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶221

Following the declaration of law made by this court in the aforesaid case and taking into consideration the finding recorded by the respondent No.4, in RRT 87/2010-11 connected with RRT 102/1011, RRT (2)(NA) CR 1/2015-16 to RRT (2) (NA) CR 5/2015-16, as per order dated 04.01.2022 to the writ petitions, I am of the opinion that, the writ petitions are deserve to be allowed. Hence, I pass the following:

¶222

ORDER

¶223

i) The writ petitions are allowed ;

¶224

ii) Office Memorandum No. L.N.D(N.A) C.R./299/2018-19 dated 01.02.2019; Office Memorandum No. L.N.D(NA) C.R./ 275/2018-19 dated 01.02.2019; Office Memorandum No. L.N.D(NA) C.R./261/2017-18 dated 12.09.2017 and

¶225

34 - NC: 2026:KHC:33455 WP No. 23986 of 2022 C/W WP No. 23050 of 2022 WP No. 24000 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶226

HC-KAR

¶227

Office Memorandum No. L.N.D(NA) C.R./ 29/2008-09 dated 27.12.2008 passed by respondent No.3 -Deputy Commissioner are hereby quashed;

¶228

iii) Writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent-Thasildar Yalahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, to enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶229

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶230

Mr. Chandranna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Chandranna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Farooque L Dadabhoy, Vs the State of Karnataka

Palvit Developers LLP Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Kalikiri Subramanyam @ Subramanya Vs the State of Karnataka

Umashankar M Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Thimmarayappa Vs the State of Karnataka