Sri Surapaneni Hanumantha Krishna Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka

REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI SADDAM PASHA S/O A MOHAMMED RASOOL ALIAS MUJEEB PASHA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO.1174, 35^TH 'C' CROSS, 26^TH MAIN, 4^TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560041.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. K. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34354 WP No. 25428 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009.

¶19

THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL - 562106.

¶20

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL - 562106.

¶21

REVENUE INSPECTOR KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL - 562106.

¶22

VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT SURAGAJAKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 562106

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

¶26

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 16/01/2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, BEARING NO. LND (A)

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34354 WP No. 25428 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

(CR)237/2022-23 (ANNX-A) AND LETTER DATED 27/12/2022, ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR BEARING NO. LND (CR)239/202223 (ANNEXURE-B), IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING LAND MEASURING 4 ACRES IN SY. NO.35 OF A. MEDIHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

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

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

In this Writ Petition, petitioner is assailing the Official Memorandum bearing No. LND(A)(CR)237/22-23, dated 16.01.2023 (Annexure-A), issued by respondent No.2 and the letter bearing No. LND(A)(CR)239/22-23, dated 27.12.2022 (Annexure-B), issued by respondent No.3, in respect of the land in question.

¶34

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had purchased portion of the land in question i.e., 4 acres in Sy. No.35 of A. Medihalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk,

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34354 WP No. 25428 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Bengaluru Urban District, as per registered Sale Deed dated 26.10.2005 (Annexure-C). It is also stated that originally land in question was granted in favour of A.K. Pillaiah vide order No.34/SR.228/1937-38 dated 17.10.1938 and the revenue records show the name of the original grantee A.K. Pillaiah as per Annexure- E. Thereafter, subsequent sale deeds have been executed in respect of the land in question and ultimately the petitioner had purchased the land in question from one Smt. R. Devakumari, as per registered Sale Deed dated 26.10.2005 (Annexure-C). It is the grievance of the petitioner that, Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, has initiated suo-motu proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 in RRT(A)(CR)/295/2010-11 in respect of the land measuring 4 acres in Sy. No.35 of A. Medihalli Village, as to the genuineness of the records. It is also stated in the Writ Petition, that entire proceedings initiated by the respondent - authority with regard to the land in question requires to be interfered with, as the said action has been initiated at the instance of some third parties, and hence this Writ Petition has been filed seeking interference of this Court.

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34354 WP No. 25428 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Sri. K. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the land in question was granted in favour of the original grantee A.K. Pillaiah on 17.10.1938 and thereafter, many registered Sale Deeds have been executed in respect of the land in question and the petitioner has purchased the land in question as per the registered Sale Deed dated 26.10.2005 (Annexure-C) to an extent of 4 acres in Sy.No.35 of A.Medihalli Village of Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, once the land has been granted in favour of A.K. Pillaiah way back in 1938, thereafter the respondent - authorities have no authority under law as to test the legality of the grant made in favour of original grantee and that apart, acquiring portion of the land in question for public purpose as per the impugned Official Memorandum dated 16.01.2023 and the letter dated 27.12.2022 (Annexures - A and B), requires to be interfered with in this Writ Petition and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

¶41

Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State submitted that the

¶42

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:34354 WP No. 25428 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

impugned Official Memorandum as per Annexures - A and the letter as per Annexure- B have been passed by the competent authority for the purpose of allotting the same for burial ground and further the village people have also made a claim for allotting portion of the land in question for the public purpose of a burial ground and accordingly, sought to justify the impugned Official Memorandum and the letter as per Annexures - A and B, by submitting that the said O.M./letter has been passed by exercising power under Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

¶45

Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader, in compliance of the orders of this Court dated 15.09.2025 and 24.06.2026 has produced the report issued by the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, as to conducting survey in respect of the land in question and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶46

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful consideration of the writ papers would indicate that the petitioner had purchased the schedule property as per the registered Sale

¶47

7 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:34354 WP No. 25428 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Deed dated 26.10.2005(Annexure-C). It is also to be noted that

¶51

the land in question was originally granted in favour of Sri. A.K. Pillaiah as per the Grant Order dated 17.10.1938 and thereafter, several registered sale deeds have been made in respect of the land in question to an extent of 4 acres in Survey No. 35 of A Medihalli Village. Therefore, t aking into consideration that valid grant has been made way back in 1938, after eight decades the respondent - authorities cannot test the legality of the grant nor can interfere with the land belonging to the petitioner is concerned.

¶52

7. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶53

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶54

(ii) The official Memorandum bearing

¶55

No.LND(A)(CR)237/22-23, dated 16.01.2023(Annexure-A), issued by respondent No.2, and the letter bearing No.LND(A)(CR)239/22-23, dated 27.12.2022 (Annexure-B), issued by respondent No.3, in respect of the land in question, are hereby set aside.

¶56

8 -

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:34354 WP No. 25428 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

(iii) However, it is open for the respondent - authorities

¶60

to identify any land belonging to the Government for the purpose of burial ground which is free from any encumbrance in so far as private parties are concerned.

¶61

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶62

sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Sri Surapaneni Hanumantha Krishna Srinivas v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Surapaneni Hanumantha Krishna Srinivas v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Zeenath Begum Vs State of Karnataka

Sandeepani Educational Society Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Kempahanumakka Vs State of Karnataka

Munivenkata Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ramakrishna K N Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri Jayaram M S Vs State of Karnataka