- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5583 WP No. 1282 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.1282 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: MR.GOVINDRAJU M SON OF LATE CHINNAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.318, 3RD CROSS CHENNAKESHAVA NAGARA SINGASANDRA BENGALURU - 560100 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N.S.SRIRAJ GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH KANDAYA BHAVAN KG ROAD BENGALURU - 560009 KARNATAKA Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5583 WP No. 1282 of 2025 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDHAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560036 KARNATAKA …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-3 TO IMPLEMENT THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2024 IN RRT(2)(E) CR16/2023-24 PASSED BY R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND THEREBY MUTATE REVENUE ENTRIES IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking direction against respondent No.3 - The Special Tahsildar to implement the order passed by respondent No.2, which is evidenced at Annexure-H and accordingly, mutate the petitioner’s name to the revenue records. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5583 WP No. 1282 of 2025 3. The petitioner is tracing title through his mother namely Mrs.Chinnamma in respect of the petition land, which measures 2 acres of the land bearing Sy. No.48 of Mulluru Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. The petitioner asserts that this land was granted to his mother and katha was, accordingly, effected pursuant to the grant and then, she was in peaceful possession till her demise in 2012. The petitioner to substantiate that his mother’s right over the petition land, he has placed reliance on the Grant Order and Official Memorandum, which are produced at Annexures-A and B respectively. The petitioner is also placing reliance on the enquiry undertaken by the Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) read with Section 67(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 which is evidenced at Annexure-H. 4. Citing this order, the petitioner would point out that the grant obtained by the petitioner’s mother is held to be genuine and the Special Deputy Commissioner after - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5583 WP No. 1282 of 2025 verifying the records, more particularly, the report furnished from the jurisdictional Tahasildar has proceeded to drop the proceedings. Citing this order, the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to seek direction at the hands of this Court. 5. Strangely, the State has taken a position contesting and disputing the enquiry conducted by respondent No.2 – the Special Deputy Commissioner, as reflected in Annexure-H. In furtherance of this stance, the State has filed a detailed statement of objections, wherein it asserts that the land in question has already been allotted to multiple grantees. Consequently, the State claims that there is no available land remaining in Sy. No.48 for further consideration. Based on this assertion, the State argues that the relief sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition is untenable and, therefore, cannot be granted by this Court. 6. Furthermore, the State contends that the land claimed by the petitioner is identical to the land claimed by - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5583 WP No. 1282 of 2025 one Shankaranarayana M.N. Due to this overlap in claims, the Revenue Authorities are allegedly facing difficulties in implementing the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, as evidenced by Annexure-H. Additionally, the State submits that the entire extent of land in Sy. No.48, measuring 10 acres and 11 guntas, was originally classified as Sarkari Gomala. Out of this total extent, 8 acres were granted to various individuals, while the remaining 2 acres and 11 guntas have been retained by the State. Given these circumstances, the State contends that there is no scope for further action in favor of the petitioner. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for the respondent – State, this Court cannot expand the scope of enquiry, where directions are sought by the citizen, more particularly, by placing reliance on the order passed by the competent Authorities followed by the enquiry undertaken by the Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5583 WP No. 1282 of 2025 read with Section 67(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 8. In a writ petition where a mandamus is sought, it becomes imperative for this Court to examine whether the petitioner, as a citizen, has a legitimate legal right to seek such a direction. This Court must further ascertain whether there exists any inaction on the part of the concerned authorities who are duty-bound to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner. The adjudication of these aspects requires careful consideration of the circumstances under which the petitioner has approached the Writ Court, the nature of the relief sought, and the corresponding obligations of the respondents under the applicable law. The essential question in this case is whether the inaction or refusal by the authorities amounts to a failure in discharging their statutory duty, thereby necessitating the issuance of a writ of mandamus. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5583 WP No. 1282 of 2025 9. In the present case, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the implementation of the order passed by respondent No.2 – the Deputy Commissioner, which is evidenced in Annexure-H. The petitioner contends that the said order, which was issued after due inquiry and verification of records, is legally binding and ought to be executed by the concerned authorities. The petitioner’s prayer essentially revolves around ensuring compliance with the findings of the Deputy Commissioner. However, the manner in which such compliance should be effectuated falls within the discretionary powers of the authorities. While the petitioner can insist on consideration of the order, the authorities retain the prerogative to determine the appropriate course of action, provided that they do so within the legal framework and in adherence to the procedural requirements. That being said, it is incumbent upon the authorities to take cognizance of the documents and findings that form the basis of the petitioner’s claim before this Court. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5583 WP No. 1282 of 2025 10. The petitioner primarily relies on the inquiry conducted by the Special Deputy Commissioner, which is reflected in Annexure-H. The findings of the Special Deputy Commissioner, after a detailed examination of the relevant records, substantiate the petitioner’s claim. It is therefore necessary to extract the key observations and conclusions drawn by the Special Deputy Commissioner, which are as follows: "After hearing the arguments and carefully perusing the material documents available on record, it is evident that the recommendation made by the Assistant Commissioner in No. LND/RUC/122/78-79 dated 26.07.1978 was duly considered. Pursuant to this recommendation, the Deputy Commissioner, by an Official Memorandum dated 22.12.1978 in No. LND(3)SR/382/78-9, granted an extent of 2 Acres of land in Survey No. 48 of Mulluru Village in favor of the grantee. Furthermore, the Tahsildar issued a Grant Certificate on 11.04.1979, which is substantiated by the documents submitted along with the Tahsildar’s report. It is further revealed that the land in question was lawfully converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes as per the Order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 26.07.1982 in No. ALN/SR/41/1982-83. This demonstrates that all statutory procedures under the relevant provisions of the Act were duly followed, and Smt. Chinnamma was granted the land in accordance with the law." "ORDER: By invoking the provisions of Sections 136(3) and 67(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, it is established that the grant of the subject land bearing - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5583 WP No. 1282 of 2025 Survey No. 48, measuring 2 Acres, situated at Mulluru Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, is genuine. Accordingly, the proceedings initiated against the said grant are hereby dropped. Further, the Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, is directed to continue the revenue entry in the name of the respondent in respect of the above-mentioned land, in accordance with law." 11. Upon a thorough examination of the findings recorded by the Special Deputy Commissioner, it is evident that the inquiry was conducted in a manner that conforms to the prescribed legal framework. The Special Deputy Commissioner, who is vested with the authority to assess the genuineness of the grant, has categorically affirmed its validity. This Court, therefore, finds no reason to doubt the findings of the inquiry and holds that respondent No.3 – the Tahsildar, who is a subordinate authority, is legally bound to act upon the conclusions drawn by the Special Deputy Commissioner. In view of this, respondent No.3 – the Tahsildar is required to take appropriate action in strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5583 WP No. 1282 of 2025 Land Revenue Act. Any further delay or failure to comply with this directive would amount to an abdication of statutory duty. 12. The objections raised by the State in its statement of objections extend beyond the scope of the relief sought in the present writ petition. This Court, therefore, does not deem it necessary to delve into the counter-contentions advanced by the State, as they do not bear direct relevance to the core issue at hand. Expanding the scope of inquiry beyond the petitioner’s specific grievance would be unwarranted in the present circumstances. Therefore, this Court confines its consideration to the limited question of whether the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner is liable to be implemented, and finds that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought, subject to the authorities’ due compliance with the applicable legal provisions. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:5583 WP No. 1282 of 2025 13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) Respondent No.3 – Tahasildar is hereby directed to pass appropriate orders by taking cognizance of the orders passed by respondent No.2 - Special Deputy Commissioner on 06.05.2022 evidenced at Annexure-H. (iii) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of two months from the date of receipt of order copy. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21