- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14439 WP No. 5293 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5427 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 5293 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 5427 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) IN WP No. 5293/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O LATE KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 33, LAKSHMIPURA VILLAGE, CHUNCHANAKUPPE DHAKALE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SATHISH D C.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE. M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14439 WP No. 5293 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5427 of 2025 K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. 4. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. 5. THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS. QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER RULE 108-K OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE RULES, 1966 IN DISPUTE NO. LND.RA(S)37/2015-16 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE LAND BEARING SY.NO. 43 MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 1 ACRE 10 GUNTAS OF CHUNCHANAKUPPE VILLAGE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER WHO IS ARRAYED AS R-47 IN THE ABOVE SAID PROCEEDINGS VIDE ANNX-E AND ETC., IN WP NO. 5427/2025 BETWEEN: SRI KITTAPPA S/O LATE MUNISWAMAIAH, SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LRS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14439 WP No. 5293 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5427 of 2025 1. GOWRAMMA D/O LATE KITTAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. NAGARAJU S/O LATE KITTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 3. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE KITTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 4. NARASHIMAIAH S/O LATE KITTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT DODDA ALADMARADAPALYA, CHUNCHANAKUPPE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU - 562 130. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. D.C SATHISH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14439 WP No. 5293 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5427 of 2025 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 5. THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK- 560 009. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.SHIVA REDDY.,AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS. QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER RULE 108-K OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE RULES, 1966 IN DISPUTE NO. LND.RA(S)37/2015-16 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE LAND BEARING SY.NO. 43 MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 30 GUNTAS OF CHUNCHANAKUPPE VILLAGE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BELONGING TO THE PETITIONERS AND FATHER WHO IS ARRAYED AS R-65 IN THE ABOVE SAID PROCEEDINGS VIDE ANNX-G AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14439 WP No. 5293 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5427 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners are challenging the proceedings that have been initiated against them under Rule 108K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, by which the lands granted to them are sought to be annulled on the ground that they were situated within 18 kms from the limits of the Bangaluru City and they were ineligible to be granted the said land. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners made an application under Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act dated 02.09.1991 (in W.P.No.5427/2025) and dated 09.09.1991 (in W.P.No.5293/2025) for regularization of their unauthorised occupation. 3. The Committee in both the cases resolved to recommend regularization of the petitioners' unauthorized occupation on 20.06.1993 (in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14439 WP No. 5293 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5427 of 2025 W.P.No.5427/2025) and on 22.03.1991 (in W.P.No.5293/2025). 4. Pursuant to the said recommendation, the Tahsildar issued a Saguvali Chit on 06.08.1994 (to the petitioners in W.P.No.5427/2025) and on 24.01.2000 (to the petitioner in W.P.No.5293/2025). 5. In other words, the lands were formally handed over to the petitioners' way back in year 1994 and in the year 2000. 6. However, as the matter stood thus proceedings have been initiated under Rule 108K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules contending that the land could not have been granted to the petitioners since it was situated within 18 kms from the BBMP limits and, even if the date of application is taken into consideration, the lands would still lie within 18 kms from the BBMP limit. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14439 WP No. 5293 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5427 of 2025 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that it is settled law that proceedings cannot be initiated after an unreasonably long period of time for cancellation of grant. He submits that a reasonable time, according to various judgments can range between 3 years to maximum of 12 years and the instantaneous proceedings have been initiated nearly 20 years and, 15 years after the Saguvali Chits have been issued and, therefore, the proceedings are vitiated due to the inordinate delay in initiation. 8. It cannot be in dispute that the power to cancel the grant is always available to the granting authorities, if it is found that the lands have been granted on the basis of fraudulent and false representations made to the granting authority. 9. In the instant case, it is not the case of the State that the petitioners misled the Authorities in coming to the conclusion that the land was situated beyond 18 kms. The Authorities were duty bound to examine - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14439 WP No. 5293 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5427 of 2025 whether the applications filed with the petitioners did come within the prohibited distance as prescribed under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules before the lands could be granted to them. Once the lands are granted and the lands are in the enjoyment of the grantees for periods in excess of 20 years, it would be impermissible for the Authorities to initiate proceedings to annul the grant on the ground that the lands granted to the petitioners were within 18 kms and, thereby, contravened the Rules. 10. It cannot also be in dispute that any power, including the suo moto power to initiate proceedings would have to be exercised within a reasonable time. 11. In my view, having regard to the fact that the Saguvali Chits were issued in the year 1994 and 2000 and, proceedings have been initiated only in the year 2015, it is obvious that the Authorities have woken up from their deep slumber nearly a quarter of a century after the grants were made and this - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14439 WP No. 5293 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5427 of 2025 would not by any strength of the imagination be construed as a reasonable period. 12. In that view of the matter, in my view, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed and, are accordingly quashed. 13. It is needless to state that this order would not in any way prejudice or amount to rendering an opinion on the merits of the claim in respect of the other grantees, against whom the proceedings have been initiated along with the petitioner and their cases will be considered on their merits. 14. As a consequence, the endorsement issued refusing to conduct podi and durasthi is also quashed and the Authorities are directed to conduct the podi and durasthi in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 15. These petitions are accordingly allowed. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:14439 WP No. 5293 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5427 of 2025 16. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27