Sri H R Basavaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI. H.R. BASAVARAJU S/O LATE SRI. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O HEGGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 125.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. JAGADISH N., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU–560 001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT–562 106.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU–560 009.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:7447 WP No. 28209 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ANEKAL,

¶21

BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 106.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP)

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.03.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN R.A.(A) NO.204/2018-19 (ANNEXURE-A) AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER’S PROPERTY; ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for all the respondents.

¶29

Though the matter is listed for Preliminary Hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the High Court Government Pleader, the writ petition are taken up for final disposal.

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:7447 WP No. 28209 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

The grievance of the petitioner is that the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division, who had no authority in law, has passed the impugned orders at Annexure-A in proceedings bearing No.RA (A) No.204/2018-19, by invoking powers under Section 136 (2) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, the 'Act'). By the said order, the Assistant Commissioner has directed for deletion of the name of the petitioner from the revenue records and enter the name of the Government in Columns No.9 and 12(2) of the RTC.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that firstly, there is no such power vested with the Assistant Commissioner which can be invoked under Section 136(2) of the Act to delete the names of the petitioners, at the instance of the Thasildar, Anekal Taluk. A plain reading of the impugned order clearly shows that despite the revenue records being maintained in the name

¶34

of the petitioner, their forefathers or predecessors in title, it is contended by the Thasildar that the original entry

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:7447 WP No. 28209 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

made in the revenue records in favour of grantees is a wrong entry, there being no such grants made in favour of those persons.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶40

further submits that such orders could not have been passed by the Assistant Commissioner that too without issuing notice to the petitioner. Moreover, merely because the Thasildar, contends that original grant records are not available to show the entry of the name of the original grantees in the revenue records is pursuant to a grant, it does not vest power with the Thasildar, or Assistant Commissioner to invoke Section 136(2) of the Act to delete the name of the petitioner from the RTCs/Revenue records and to enter the name of the Government. It is submitted that, if such powers, if at all are relatable to Section 136(3) of the Act, which empowers the Deputy Commissioner, who may, on his own motion or on application filed by the party, call for and examine any records made under Section 127 and Section 129 of the

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:7447 WP No. 28209 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Act and pass such orders as he may deem fit, provided that no order shall be passed except after hearing the party, who would be adversely effected by such orders. No such suo-motu powers are vested with the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Act.

¶45

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that in respect of the powers exercisable by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act, this court has consistently held that such powers cannot be invoked as and when liked by the Deputy Commissioner. The power to cancel a grant or to take action to remove the names from the revenue records, which have been maintained for decades together, though permissible, such action is required to be taken within reasonable time. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Smt. Pyari Ma and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others , in W.P.No.22426 of 2021 , disposed of on 12.01.2022 .

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:7447 WP No. 28209 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, while pointing out to the impugned orders, submits that one of the parties before this Court, has filed objections before the Assistant Commissioner, which means opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner.

¶50

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader and on perusing the writ papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that, Assistant Commissioner has no authority in law to have considered such appeals filed at the instance of the Thasildar, under Section 136(2) of the Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, suo-motu powers as found under Section 136(3) of the Act are exercisable only by the Deputy Commissioner and not by the Assistant Commissioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is also right in his submission that the material available on record, clearly show that mutation entries

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:7447 WP No. 28209 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

have been maintained in the revenue records for more than five decades. Such being the case, it does not empower the revenue authorities including Deputy Commissioner to invoke suo-motu powers exercisable under Section 136(3) of the Act to set at naught the revenue entries which are maintained in the revenue records for decades. Unless appropriate action is taken in accordance with law to cancel the grant made or to consider the fact that entries are made in the revenue records without any basis and the competent authority considers the claim of both the sides, such orders cannot be passed to set at naught long-standing entries in the revenue records i.e. more than five decades.

¶55

9. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed ,

¶56

setting aside the impugned order at Annexure-A in the writ petition. The concerned Tahsildar is directed to restore the revenue entries as they stood prior to the passing of the impugned orders. The said Action shall be taken as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period

¶57

8 -

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:7447 WP No. 28209 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order to restore the names in the revenue records as it stood prior to the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the 3^rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner.

¶61

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶62

HB

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Sri H R Basavaraju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H R Basavaraju 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Manjunatha Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri. Chandrashekar Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Parvathamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Pramodha S Vs Deputy Commissioner

Smt Y L Nagarathna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. C.G. Mallaesh Vs the State of Karnataka