- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8662 WP No. 5516 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 5516 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. H.G. SOMASHEKAR S/O GURAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO. 58/3, GANGOTRI NILAYA, ODION LAYOUT, HALANAYAKANAHALLI, CARMELARAM POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, SARJAPUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 035. 2. H.G. UMAPATHI S/O GURAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT HALANAYAKANAHALLI, CARMELARAM POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, SARJAPUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 035. 3. VENKATASWAMY H.G., S/O GURAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT HALANAYAKANAHALLI, CARMELARAM POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, SARJAPUR ROAD, BENGALURU 560 035 4. JAGADISH H G S/O GURAPPA REDDY Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8662 WP No. 5516 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT HALANAYAKANAHALLI, CARMELARAM POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, SARJAPUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 035 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RANGANATH REDDY R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, UNDER SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVANA, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU 560 009. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, DURAVANI NAGAR, KR PURAM, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU 560 036 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MANJUNATH K., HCGP) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS. QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE R-2 UNDER SECTION 67(2) AND 136(3) OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 BEARING PROCEEDINGS NO. RRT(2)(E) CR.47/2008-09 VIDE ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8662 WP No. 5516 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court seeking quashing of entire proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner, as outlined in Annexure-B. The petitioner submits that the land grant in question has already been subjected to a detailed and exhaustive inquiry conducted by two competent authorities. Among them, one officer, holding the esteemed rank of Karnataka Administrative Service (KAS), undertook a comprehensive examination of the matter. Upon careful scrutiny of all relevant records and evidence, the said officer arrived at a well-reasoned conclusion affirming the genuineness and legitimacy of the land grant. 2. Despite this prior adjudication, the present Deputy Commissioner, who is an officer of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), has initiated fresh proceedings to re-examine the very same issue of the land - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8662 WP No. 5516 of 2025 grant’s authenticity. The petitioner contends that such an inquiry is unwarranted and redundant, as the matter has already been conclusively determined by a competent authority in the rank of Deputy Commissioner under the KAS cadre. It is the petitioner’s assertion that reopening the inquiry at this stage not only undermines the findings of the previous investigation but also leads to unnecessary harassment and hardship. Therefore, the petitioner prays for the intervention of this Hon’ble Court to stay the proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 2, thereby preventing any further unwarranted inquiry into an issue that has already been conclusively settled. 3. Questioning the proceedings by Deputy Commissioner petitioner now seeks to quashing of proceedings. 4. The petitioner further submits that substantial documentary evidence has been placed on record to establish continuous possession of the land by the petitioner’s family for nearly a century, dating back to the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8662 WP No. 5516 of 2025 time of their ancestors. The documents produced reveal an uninterrupted chain of ownership transfers, demonstrating that the granted land has changed hands multiple times over the years. Notably, the land has undergone eleven transactions, with the petitioner being the eleventh bona fide purchaser. This sequence of transactions further substantiates the legitimacy of the grant and the petitioner’s lawful ownership. 5. In light of these facts, the petitioner is challenging the proceedings initiated by the 4th respondent under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. While this Hon’ble Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings at this stage, it is imperative that the 4th respondent/Deputy Commissioner strictly adheres to the legal principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Specifically, the petitioner places reliance on the landmark judgments in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka & Another and Vivek M. Hinduja v. M. Aswatha. The Deputy Commissioner is also bound by the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8662 WP No. 5516 of 2025 well-settled legal principles reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav and Ningappa v. Deputy Commissioner & Others. These rulings emphasize that when a statute does not prescribe a specific period of limitation, legal proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable timeframe. The Apex Court has categorically held that authorities must consider the time elapsed before taking any action and ensure that prolonged delays do not prejudice the rights of individuals. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the Deputy Commissioner to take cognizance of these binding precedents and exercise jurisdiction in a manner consistent with established legal principles. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court has unequivocally held that the competent authorities have the discretion to refrain from annulling alienations in cases where there has been an inordinate delay in initiating action by the interested persons under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8662 WP No. 5516 of 2025 (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act). The Court has emphasized that prolonged inaction on the part of the concerned parties must be taken into consideration while deciding whether to disturb settled transactions. 7. In light of this well-established judicial precedent, the petitioner is at liberty to present all relevant supporting documents to demonstrate that the subject property has undergone multiple transfers over time. Given the passage of several years and the successive changes in ownership, the petitioner has undeniably acquired vested rights over the property, which are deserving of legal protection. Captioned Petition stands disposed of. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE BNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46 CT:SNN