1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 6872 OF 2013 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1 . SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2 . SRI. NAGESH S/O LATE KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 3 . SRI. MAHESH S/O LATE KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS PETITIONERS NO. 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NO. 490/A, ACCS LAYOUT D BLOCK, SINGASANDRA CHIKKABEGUR ROAD MADIVALA P.O. BENGALURU-560 068. 4 . SMT. ROOPA W/O D.S. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO. 3/A BOMMANAHALLI BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK 2 MANDUR POST BANGALORE-560 049. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD BANGALORE-560 009. 3 . THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN K.G. BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD BANGALORE-560 009. 4 . 4(A) 4(B) SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE V. GIRIRAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS SRI. PRAKASH S/O LATE V. GIRIRAJAPPA AGED AJBOUT 35 YEARS 3 4(C) 4(D) 4(E) 4(F) 4(G) 4(H) 4(I) 4(J) 4(K) SRI. SANDEEP S/O LATE V. GIRIRAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS KANTHA W/O LATE V. GIRIRAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS SRI. MAHENDRA S/O LATE V. GIRIRAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS SMT. PILLAMMA D/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS SRI. V. ANJANAPPA S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS SMT. V. RENUKAMMA D/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS SMT. NAGAVENI D/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS SRI. V. BABU D/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS SMT. SAKAMMA D/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 4 RESPONDENTS NO. 4(A) TO 4(K) ARE ALL R/A NO.220 CHIKKABEGUR VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560 068 . …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH .K, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. B.C.SRIRAMA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4(A, B, D, E, G); R4(J) - SERVED; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R4(C, F, H, I, K) IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.04.2012 AND 02.05.2012 PASSED BY R-3 IN RRTCR 35/12-13 RESULTING IN MR NO. H 157/2011-12, VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ANNEXURE-J AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.01.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM C.A.V. ORDER Captioned petition is filed assailing the order dated 18.4.2012 and 2.5.2012 passed by respondent No.3/Special Tahsildhar in RR.No. RRTCR 35/12-13 and consequent mutation effected under M.R.No.H 157/2011-12 as per Annexures-H and J. 5 2. Facts leading to the case are as under: The dispute is in regard to survey No.161 measuring 2.10 acres situated at Begur village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Petitioners' assert that this land was admittedly an Inam land and 30 guntas in the above said survey number was re-granted to the grand father of petitioners 2 to 4 and remaining 1.20 acres was purchased by Pillamma, grand mother of petitioners 2 to 4. 3. Respondent No.4 is also asserting right and title over Survey No.161. 4. Two miscellaneous appeals were filed before the Principal District Judge, FTC-III, Bengaluru, under Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. Among them, M.A. No. 162/2006 was instituted against Kalegowda, the father of petitioners 2 to 4, who was arrayed as respondent No.3 in that appeal. The subject matter of M.A. No. 162/2006 pertained to the re-grant of 6 land in favour of the petitioners' ancestor, Kalegowda. In this appeal, the ancestors of respondent Nos. 4(a) to 4(k), namely Venkataramanappa, filed I.A. No. 7 claiming rights over Survey No. 161. However, this impleading application was rejected by the court. Consequently, the main appeal in M.A. No. 162/2006 was also dismissed, upholding the re- grant in favor of Kalegowda. 5. The petitioners in the present writ petition are aggrieved by what they allege to be fraudulent actions on the part of the original respondent No.4, Venkataramanappa. They contend that Venkataramanappa fabricated an order purportedly issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, in R.A. No. 276/2005-2006. This fabricated order falsely declares Venkataramanappa as the owner of multiple parcels of land, including the disputed land bearing Survey No. 161. Based on this fraudulent order, respondent No.3, the Tahsildar, issued the impugned order, as documented in Annexure-H. 7 Consequently, Venkataramanappa’s name was mutated in the revenue records for Survey No. 161 under MR. No. H 157/2011-2012, as evidenced by Annexure-J. These two orders, Annexure-H and Annexure-J, are the subject of challenge in the current petition filed by the petitioners. 6. In response to the allegations raised in the writ petition, the respondent authorities have filed their statement of objections. Notably, respondent No.2, in paragraph 3 of objections, categorically asserted that the purported order in R.A. No. 276/2005-2006 is fabricated and fraudulent. The State authorities identified a specific caseworker responsible for creating and fabricating this document. They further clarified that the appeal in R.A. No. 276/2005-2006, though reserved for orders, was never disposed of. To substantiate this claim, the State has submitted the original order sheet, which indicates that the Assistant Commissioner presiding over the appeal signed 8 the order sheet on every listed hearing date. The signatures on the order sheet, as authenticated by the State, do not match the signature appearing on the fabricated order. 7. The State has provided the Court with the original order sheet as documentary evidence to support their contention. This evidence demonstrates significant discrepancies between the genuine signatures of the Assistant Commissioner and those found on the fabricated order. By disclosing the name of the implicated caseworker, the State has further reinforced its position that the order in question is a deliberate forgery. The petitioners, therefore, seek the intervention of the court to nullify the impugned orders and address the fraudulent activities that have caused substantial harm to their legal rights over the disputed land. 8. Legal heirs of respondent No.4 have not filed statement of objections. 9 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, counsel appearing for Respondents 4(a, b, d, e and g) and learned HCGP appearing for respondents 1 to 3. 10. Neither respondent No.4 nor his legal heirs have produced any documentary evidence before this Court to substantiate their claim over the petition land, whereas the petitioners have asserted their title based on a re-grant order. Upon a thorough examination of the purported order in R.A. No. 276/2005-2006, it is evident that respondent No.4/Venkataramanappa has forged the order of the Assistant Commissioner, despite the matter being reserved and the actual orders yet to be passed. A meticulous comparison of the Assistant Commissioner’s signatures on the genuine order sheet with those on the fabricated order unequivocally demonstrates that the signatures do not match. The Court has closely scrutinized these signatures, and there is no resemblance whatsoever between the 10 authenticated signatures on the order sheet and the disputed signatures on the fabricated order. Respondent No.2 has, under oath, confirmed before this Court that no order was passed in the appeal R.A. No. 276/2005-2006, further solidifying the claim of fabrication. 11. The State has produced the original order sheet as evidence, which reflects that the Assistant Commissioner signed it on each listed date of hearing. These signatures are consistent and authenticated, starkly contrasting with the signature on the forged document. This discrepancy clinches the issue at hand, leaving no room for doubt that the purported order is a product of forgery. Furthermore, respondent No.4, by attempting to rely on this fabricated document, has not only made a false claim over the petition land but has also engaged in acts that undermine the integrity of the judicial process. Consequently, the impugned order passed by respondent No.3, as documented in Annexure-H, and the subsequent mutation 11 recorded under MR. No. H 157/2011-2012, fail to meet the requirements stipulated under Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Both the impugned orders are therefore liable to be quashed. Regrettably, respondent No.4, who orchestrated the fabrication of the order, is no longer alive. Otherwise, this case would have been a fit instance to initiate appropriate legal proceedings and impose exemplary costs to deter such fraudulent practices. However, it is alarming that his legal representatives have audaciously placed reliance on the forged order to substantiate their claim over the petition land. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 18.4.2012 and 2.5.2012 passed by respondent No.3 in RR.No.RRTCR 35/12-13 and consequent mutation effected under M.R.No.H 12 157/2011-12 as per Annexures-"H and J" are hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) Respondent No.3 is hereby directed to restore the entries as they existed before mutation in M.R.No.H157/2011-12 as per Annexures-"H and J" and in accordance to order dated 14.03.1995 passed by Tahsildar in HOA:CR:185:80-81 vide Annexure-A. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB