- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6045 WP No. 1827 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 1827 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. SARASWATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O ASHWATH GOWDA, H. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, DUGGASANDRA HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 136. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGARAJA T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, 3RD GATE 5TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR, MULABAGAL ROAD, NH-75, KOLAR - 563 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, NEAR COURT CIRCLE, KOLAR, GOWRI PETE, KOLAR - 563 101. Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6045 WP No. 1827 of 2025 4. THE TAHSILDAR MULABAGAL - 563 131, KOLAR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 4.11.2021 PASSED BY THE R-4 i.e. THE TAHSILDAR, MULABGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563136 IN RRTDS.CR/406/2021-22 PRODUCED AT ANNX-M 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 The petitioner is assailing the order of respondent No.4-Tahasildar, who has exercised inherent power conferred on the revenue courts under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'Act') and saguvali chit issued to the petitioner is sought to be cancelled. The said order is under challenge. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6045 WP No. 1827 of 2025 3. Upon seeking clarification from the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) regarding the jurisdiction of the Tahasildar in conducting an enquiry into the genuineness of the Saguvali Chit, she has fairly conceded that the Tahasildar lacks the authority to undertake such an enquiry. However, she has sought to justify the actions of the Tahasildar by contending that the enquiry was initiated based on a complaint received and that the Tahasildar exercised inherent powers vested in revenue officials under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. This argument, however, does not hold merit, as the inherent powers conferred under Section 25 are not intended to override or circumvent the specific procedural framework established under the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the '1966 Rules'). Any exercise of power beyond the legally defined limits of jurisdiction renders the proceedings unsustainable in the eyes of the law. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6045 WP No. 1827 of 2025 4. Rule 108K of the 1966 Rules lays down a specific procedure for the cancellation of a grant, including the authority designated to conduct such an enquiry. A careful reading of the said rule makes it abundantly clear that the power to hold an enquiry into the validity of a grant and to take appropriate action is exclusively vested in the Assistant Commissioner. The rule does not confer any such authority upon the Tahasildar. In the present case, the Tahasildar, despite lacking jurisdiction, has proceeded to initiate an enquiry and pass an order, which is inherently without legal sanction. Since the power to conduct such an enquiry and take any action in this regard is vested only with the Assistant Commissioner, the impugned order is clearly one without jurisdiction and authority. Consequently, on this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside as being unsustainable in law. 5. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6045 WP No. 1827 of 2025 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed; ii. The impugned order dated 04.11.2021, vide Annexure-M, is hereby quashed and set aside; iii. However, this order will not come in the way of competent authority to hold an enquiry; iv. In the event such an enquiry is contemplated, all contentions are kept open and the petitioner is at liberty to re-agitate all the grounds which are urged in the captioned petition; v. Respondent No.4 shall forthwith restore the petitioner's name in the RTC; vi. This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of order copy; vii. It is also made clear that the restoration of the petitioner's name in the RTC will be subject to enquiry, if any. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 CT: BHK