Sri C a Krishnamurthy Vs the Principal Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri C a Krishnamurthy Vs the Principal Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned order of the Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, at Annexure-A in LND(K)C.R.45/2017-18 dated 11.07.2025 quashed and set aside; liberty reserved to the petitioners to file an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North SubDivision, invoking Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 within six weeks; the State of Karnataka represented by the Tahsildar to be the respondent in those proceedings; the Assistant Commissioner to issue notices, consider the matter in light of the Court's observations while calling for all original records, and dispose of the appeal expeditiously and in any event within six months of its filing.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tahsildar's impugned order dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure-A), declining to pass orders on the petitioners' claim for entry of their names in the revenue records on the ground that proceedings were pending in respect of Survey Nos. 33 and 34 ('Sarakari Gunduthopu') till a decision by the Special Court for Land Grabbing, was sustainable. +1 more

Court's answer

When the issue is entry of the petitioners' names in the revenue records on the strength of inheritance or succession, and the name of the petitioners' father, late Sri.M.Abbaiah @ Abbanna, was admittedly entered in the revenue records (verified even by the Special Deputy Commissioner), such a decision could not be taken by the Tahsildar; the real question is how the father's name was removed and the government's name entered without notice to the previous kathedar or his legal heirs.

Ratio / Principle

Such matters can be dealt with only by the Assistant Commissioner, having regard to the appeal provision under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; the Assistant Commissioner is a fact-finding authority required to call for the original records (grant register and saguvali chit issue register) and earlier mutation records to find out whether the grant was made in favour of Sri.Abbaiah @ Abbanna and his name was entered in the revenue records.

Key takeaways

If it is found from the original records that the grant was indeed made in favour of Sri.Abbaiah and his name was entered in the revenue records pursuant to the grant and issuance of saguvali chit, the removal of the name of Abbaiah and entry of the name of the government would be illegal; the Assistant Commissioner shall then immediately direct removal of the government's name from the RTC and consider the petitioners' claim for entering their names in the RTC as successors of the lands in place of Sri.Abbaiah @ Abbanna.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (R Devdas J, 07.01.2026) allowed W.P. No. 39188/2025 (KLR-RES) and quashed the Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk's order dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure-A, LND(K)C.R.45/2017-18), whereby the Tahsildar had refused to pass orders on the petitioners' claim for entry of their names in the revenue records for 25 guntas in Survey No.33, Channasandra Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, on the ground that proceedings concerning Survey Nos. 33 and 34 ('Sarakari Gunduthopu') were pending before the Special Court for Land Grabbing. The land had been granted to the petitioners' father Sri.M.Abbaiah @ Abbanna in 1978 (saguvali chit 30.03.1979) and his name stood in the revenue records till 2005, but was deleted after computerization and the government's name substituted without notice. Held: where the issue is entry of names on inheritance/succession and the predecessor's entry is admitted, the Tahsildar cannot decide the matter; such questions lie only before the Assistant Commissioner as fact-finding authority under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, who must call for original records (grant register, saguvali chit register, mutation records) and, if the grant and entry are verified, declare the removal illegal, restore the RTC and consider the petitioners as successors. Liberty given to appeal within six weeks; appeal to be decided within six months with the State (through the Tahsildar) as respondent.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:701 WP No. 39188 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 39188 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. C.A. KRISHNAMURTHY SON OF LATE ABBAIAH @ABBANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 131 NEAR BASAWESHWARA TEMPLE CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BIDARALLI HOBLI, KADUGODI, WARD NO. 83, BANGALORE - 560 067.

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

SRI. C.A. SRINIVASA SON OF LATE ABBAIAH @ABBANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 131

NEAR BASAWESHWARA TEMPLE

CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE BANGALORE EAST TALUK BIDARALLI HOBLI, KADUGODI, WARD NO. 83, BANGALORE - 560 067.

SRI. C.A. MOHAN KUMAR SON OF LATE ABBAIAH @ABBANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 131 NEAR BASAWESHWARA TEMPLE

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:701 WP No. 39188 of 2025

HC-KAR

CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE BANGALORE EAST TALUK BIDARALLI HOBLI, KADUGODI, WARD NO. 83, BANGALORE - 560 067.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPORTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE.

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK KR PURA, BENGALURU - 560 034.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT / TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK IN L.N.D (K0 C R NO. 45/2017-18 DATED 11.07.2025 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:701 WP No. 39188 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for both the respondents.

Although the matter is coming up for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that 25

guntas of land in Survey No.33 of Channasandra Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, was granted in favour of the petitioners' father, late Sri.M.Abbaiah @ Abbanna, in proceedings bearing No.LND.7/1978-79 dated 25.03.1978. Saguvali chit was also issued on 30.03.1979, the name of the petitioners' father was entered in the revenue records and continued till his death in the year 2005. After computerization, the name of the petitioners' father was left out of the revenue records and the name of the government was shown in the revenue records. The petitioners gave a representation to the Deputy Commissioner on 02.09.2016 to enter the name of the petitioners in the RTC and the Deputy Commissioner passed an

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:701 WP No. 39188 of 2025

HC-KAR

order on 02.09.2016 directing the Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, to make the necessary entry in the revenue records. However, the Tahsildar preferred writ petition No.11793/2019. However, this Court was of the considered opinion that the Special Deputy Commissioner could not have issued directions to the Tahsildar without giving reasonable opportunity to the Tahsildar to place on record all documents, including the register of grants and register of issuance of grant certificates, before expressing any opinion on the genuineness of the grant said to have been made in favour of Sri.Abbaiah @ Abbanna. Consequently, the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner was quashed and the matter was remanded back to the Special Deputy Commissioner-1. In the light of the observations made by the Court, thereafter, the Special Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 14.03.2023 in RRT(2)N(A)20/2016-17, observing that originally the lands in question in Survey No.33 were earmarked as a 'dharmada topu'. It is also found that the lands were granted in favour of Sri.Abbaiah and others. The Special Deputy Commissioner further observed that provisions are available in the Karnataka

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:701 WP No. 39188 of 2025

HC-KAR

Land Grant Rules, 1969, for the granting authority to cancel the grant, if any, if it is made contrary to law.

With these observations, the matter was remanded to the Tahsildar to take necessary steps by invoking the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, after providing proper opportunity to all concerned parties. However, despite such directions when the Tahsildar did not act, the petitioners once again approached this Court in W.P.No.8106/2025 seeking necessary directions to the Tahsildar. This Court by order dated 15.04.2025, disposed of the writ petition No. 8106/2025, directing the Tahsildar to comply with the orders passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner and pass necessary orders within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Pursuant to the said directions issued by this Court, the Tahsildar has passed the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 11.07.2025, holding that there were proceedings initiated against several persons in respect of Survey Nos. 33 and 34, which are 'Sarakari Gunduthopu,' and till a decision is taken by

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:701 WP No. 39188 of 2025

HC-KAR

the Special Court for Land Grabbing, no orders can be passed by the Tahsildar.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as of now there is no proceeding pending before the Special Court for Land Grabbing against the petitioners. However, learned counsel submits that a police notice was issued to the petitioners and the same was questioned by the petitioners in W.P. No. 10613/2025, and the police notice dated 06.11.2024 has been stayed.

Having heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned HCGP and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that when the issue is regarding the entry of the name of the petitioners in the revenue records on the strength of inheritance or succession, while admittedly the name of the petitioners' father, late Sri.M.Abbaiah @ Abbanna was entered in the revenue records, even as verified by the Special Deputy Commissioner, such a decision could not be taken by the Tahsildar. The question is as to how the name of the petitioners' father was removed from the revenue records and the name of the government was

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:701 WP No. 39188 of 2025

HC-KAR

entered, without notice to the previous kathedar or his legal heirs.

In the considered opinion of this Court, such matters can be dealt with only by the Assistant Commissioner having regard to the appeal provision provided under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 1964. The Assistant Commissioner is a fact-finding authority who is required to call for the original records and find out as to whether the grant was made in favor of Sri Abbaiah @ Abbanna, and the said fact is reflected in the grant register and saguvali chit issue register. Further, the Assistant Commissioner is required to call for the earlier mutation records to find out whether the name of Sri.Abbaiah was entered in the revenue records. If it is found from the original records that such a grant was indeed made in favour of Sri.Abbaiah and his name was entered in the revenue records pursuant to the grant and issuance of saguvali chit, the removal of the name of Abbaiah and entry of the name of the government would be illegal. If the Assistant Commissioner finds that these are the true facts, then he shall immediately direct removal of the name of the government from the RTC

8 -

NC: 2026:KHC:701 WP No. 39188 of 2025

HC-KAR

and consider the claim of the petitioners for entering their names in the RTC as successors of the lands in question in the place of Sri.Abbaiah @ Abbanna.

Needless to observe that the claim of the State shall

be represented by the Tahsildar, who shall be the respondent in the said case. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed.

ii. The impugned order passed by the Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, at Annexure-A in proceedings bearing No.LND(K)C.R.45/2017-18 dated 11.07.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside.

iii. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North SubDivision, invoking Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, within a period of six weeks from today.

9 -

NC: 2026:KHC:701 WP No. 39188 of 2025

HC-KAR

iv. The State of Karnataka, represented by the Tahsildar, shall be the party respondent to the proceedings. The Assistant Commissioner shall issue notice to the respondents therein and consider the matter in the light of the observations made by this Court while calling for all the original records and the Assistant Commissioner shall endeavour to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six months from the date when the appeal is filed by the petitioners.

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

rv

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order of the Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk, in LND(K)C.R.45/2017-18 dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure-A), passed pursuant to the Court's directions in W.P.No.8106/2025, holding that proceedings had been initiated against several persons in respect of Survey Nos. 33 and 34, which are 'Sarakari Gunduthopu', and that till a decision is taken by the Special Court for Land Grabbing no orders can be passed by the Tahsildar.¶62
Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk · 11.07.2025
Prior proceeding
25 guntas in Survey No.33, Channasandra Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk granted to the petitioners' father late Sri.M.Abbaiah @ Abbanna in proceedings No.LND.7/1978-79 dated 25.03.1978; saguvali chit issued 30.03.1979; his name continued in revenue records till his death in 2005; after computerization his name was left out and the government's name shown.¶33
Prior proceeding
Petitioners represented to the Deputy Commissioner on 02.09.2016 seeking entry of their names in the RTC; the Deputy Commissioner directed the Tahsildar to make the entry; the Tahsildar preferred Writ Petition No.11793/2019, in which this Court held the Special Deputy Commissioner could not have issued directions without reasonable opportunity, quashed the Special Deputy Commissioner's order and remanded the matter to Special Deputy Commissioner-1.¶37
Prior proceeding
On remand, the Special Deputy Commissioner passed an order dated 14.03.2023 in RRT(2)N(A)20/2016-17 observing that the lands in Survey No.33 were originally earmarked as a 'dharmada topu' but were granted in favour of Sri.Abbaiah and others, and noted that the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 provide for cancellation of grants made contrary to law; the matter was remanded to the Tahsildar.¶37
Prior proceeding
The Tahsildar did not act despite the remand directions; petitioners approached this Court in W.P.No.8106/2025, which was disposed of by order dated 15.04.2025 directing the Tahsildar to comply with the Special Deputy Commissioner's orders and pass necessary orders within three months.¶42
Prior proceeding
A police notice dated 06.11.2024 issued to the petitioners was questioned by them in W.P. No. 10613/2025 and has been stayed; counsel submitted no proceeding is presently pending before the Special Court for Land Grabbing against the petitioners.¶47