Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22014 (KAR)

SEETHARAMAIAH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/30695/2018 · 2025-07-15

E S Indiresh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26180 WP No. 30695 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.30695 OF 2018 (KLR-LG) BETWEEN: 1. SEETHARAMAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LR. 1(a). SRI. MANJESH K.S. S/O SEETHARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 2. SRI. GOVINDAPPA S/O LATE THIMMAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 3. LAKSHMAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LR 3(a). SRI. KIRAN L. S/O LAKSHMINARASIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS. 4. SRI. RAMANJINAPPA K.V. S/O LATE VENKATAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 5. SRI. SRINIVAS K.V. S/O LATE VENKATAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT: KADARANHALLI VILLAGE, LAKSHMIPURA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH - 562 123. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26180 WP No. 30695 of 2018 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE SPL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. TAHASILDAR NELAMANGALA TALUK, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 5. SIDDAGANGA MUTT REP. BY SIDDALINGASWAMYJI TUMAKURU - 572 104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. PRABHULING NAVADGI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. SANJEEVINI P. NAVADGI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 18TH AUGUST, 2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ORDER DATED 27TH APRIL, 2018 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.897/2011 (REVENUE) ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 TO CONCLUDE THE PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUANCE OF SAGUVALI CHIT PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26180 WP No. 30695 of 2018 THE RESPONDENT NO.4-TAHSILDAR DATED 31ST JULY, 1982 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH CAV ORDER In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the Official Memorandum dated 18th August, 2010 (Annexure-H) issued by the respondent No.2 and order dated 27th April, 2018 (Annexure-K) passed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.897/2011 (Revenue); inter alia sought for a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to issue Saguvali Chit in favour of petitioners in respect of the land in question as per order dated 31st July, 1982 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.4- Tahsildar. 2. The brief facts for adjudication of this writ petition as averred in the petition are that the petitioners claim to be the grantees of the land bearing Survey No.41 of Kadaranahalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The petitioners have made an application, seeking grant of land and based on the said application, the respondent No.2-Special - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26180 WP No. 30695 of 2018 Deputy Commissioner in proceedings No.LND(1)RHM. PR.1020/81-82 had proposed for grant of the land in favour of the petitioners and thereafter, the respondent No.4-Tahsildar, in proceedings No.LND.CR.374/81-82, had granted 3 acres of land each to the petitioners and same was communicated to the respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner as per letter dated 31st July, 1982 (Annexure-A). Pursuant to the same, survey sketch was prepared as per Annexure-B. It is further stated that the petitioners belongs to Adi Karnataka community and as such, though the upset price was fixed at Rs.1,000/- per acre, the grant was made waiving payment of upset price from the applicants. It is also stated that the land in question was subjected to auction as per the Notification dated 02nd April, 2007 issued by the respondent No.2, however, the said auction was not concluded on the ground that the land in question was granted in favour of the petitioners. 3. It is further averred in the petition that the respondent No.5-Mutt had made an application seeking allotment of land for the purpose of establishment of Dasoha - Prasada Distribution Centre and the Government without considering the grant made in favour of petitioners, had - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26180 WP No. 30695 of 2018 granted land to the respondent No.5-Mutt to an extent of 14 acre 25 guntas as per Government Order dated 27th May, 2010 (Annexure-F) and pursuant to same, the Official Memorandum dated 18th August, 2010 (Annexure-H) came to be issued by the respondent No.2. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners have approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.897/2011 (Revenue), challenging the Official Memorandum dated 18th August, 2010 (Annexure-H) issued by the respondent No.2, granting 14 acre 25 guntas in Survey No.41 of Kadaranahalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk to the respondent No.5-Mutt. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 27th April, 2018 (Annexure-K), dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners presented this writ petition. 4. Heard Sri. Bipin Hegde, learned counsel along with Sri. Bharath Kumar V., appearing for petitioners; Sri. Reuben Jacob, learned Additional Advocate General along with Smt. Savithramma, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4; and Sri. Prabhuling Navadgi, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26180 WP No. 30695 of 2018 learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Smt. Sanjeevini P. Navadgi, appearing for the respondent No.5-Mutt. 5. Sri. Bipin Hegde, learned counsel appearing for petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the letter dated 31st July, 1982 (Annexure-A) addressed by the respondent No.4 to the respondent No.3 with regard to grant of land in favour of the applicants mentioned in the said letter and submitted that the said report was made along with the Dharkasth records build-up as per the direction of the respondent No.2 as the applicants were belonging to Adi Karnataka community. He further argued that the land in question is surrounded by Hiduvali lands and not convenient for pasturing and that apart the upset price was fixed at Rs.1,000/- per acre and same was waived insofar as applicants belonged to Adi Karnataka community. He also referred to Official Memorandum dated 11th October, 1982 (Annexure-L) and submitted that, as per the said official memorandum, the land in question has been granted in favour of the petitioners. He also contended that the upset price has been paid by the respective applicants as per Annexure-M series and further the name of the applicants found place in the Register of Dharkasth - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26180 WP No. 30695 of 2018 lands for cultivation, which makes it clear that the land has been granted in favour of the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel Sri. Bipin Hegde, appearing for petitioners also referred to the affidavit dated 03rd March, 2025 filed by the Tahsildar, office of the Regional Commissioner, Bengaluru Division, Bengaluru and affidavit dated 03rd March, 2025 filed by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru and contended that the records pertaining to the grant made in favour of petitioners are found in the office of the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North and as such, the RTC extracts stands in the name of the petitioners insofar as the land in question and therefore, the reasons assigned by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.897/2011 (Revenue) that, there is no evidence available to show with regard to the grant made in favour of the petitioners is incorrect. By inviting the attention of the Court to the applications filed by the petitioners for grant of land, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have properly mentioned the extent of land, though the survey number is wrongly mentioned as survey number 42 and further contended that the entire records are prepared and put-up by the respondent-Authorities. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26180 WP No. 30695 of 2018 Accordingly, he argued that the reasons assigned in the impugned order dated 27th April, 2018 (Annexure-K) by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.897/2011 (Revenue) requires to be set-aside. 7. Insofar as the grant made in favour of the respondent No.5-Mutt is concerned, Sri. Bipin Hegde, learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that, there is no impediment for the respondent-State to allot any other land other than the land in question belonging to the petitioners and accordingly, sought for quashing the Official Memorandum dated 18th August, 2010 (Annexure-H) issued by the respondent No.2. Insofar as the contentions raised by learned counsel appearing for respondents, questioning the genuineness of grant made in favour of petitioners as well as the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory dated 12th May, 2025 are concerned, learned counsel appearing for petitioners replied that the expert opinion of the Forensic Science Laboratory is not conclusive and it is stated that the documents relating to grant made in favour of the petitioners might have been typed on the same Typewriter, and therefore, the said - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26180 WP No. 30695 of 2018 finding would not itself basis for rejecting the grant made in favour of the petitioners. 8. 8. He further contended that, in an identical circumstances with regard to allotment of land in favour of Adichunchanagiri Maha Samsthana Mutt, in Writ Petition No.49958 of 2019 disposed of on 18th July, 2022, this Court, set-aside the allotment made in favour of the Mutt, wherein the land was granted in favour of the grantees under a particular scheme. He further contended that the said order was confirmed in Writ Appeal No.769 of 2022 decided on 18th January, 2024 and therefore, he sought for interference of this Court. 9. Per contra, Sri. Ruben Jacob, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State sought to justify the impugned order dated 27th April, 2018 (Annexure-K) passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.897/2011 (Revenue) and contended that the land in question belongs to Government and at no point of time, land in question was granted in favour of the petitioners. He further contended that the documents referred to by the petitioners - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26180 WP No. 30695 of 2018 are created to knock off the Government land in question. By referring to the documents particularly the Official Memorandum dated 11th October, 1982 (Annexure-L), learned Additional Advocate General submits that the said document is not signed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bengaluru Division and the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District and the same is created for the purpose of the case. He further contended that the Kimmat receipts produced by the petitioners are not found in the original records and therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 10 It is further argued by learned Additional Advocate General that Sl. No.48/81-82 mentioned in the register of Dharkasth land for cultivation is not found in the original records and therefore, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the Regional Commissioner, Bengaluru Division has filed affidavit dated 10th March, 2025 stating that steps have been taken to secure assistance of the Forensic Science Laboratory to ascertain the genuineness of the aforementioned documents. It is the vehement argument of learned Additional Advocate General that the grant upon which the petitioners are seeking right in respect of the land in question is doubtful and as a - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26180 WP No. 30695 of 2018 responsible Officer of the State, the Regional Commissioner forwarded the documents to Forensic Science Laboratory for expert opinion. Referring to the Forensic Science Laboratory report, learned Additional Advocate General argued that the entire grant records relying upon by the petitioners are said to have been typed in a same Typewriter, which never happened in the Government office and therefore document referred to by the petitioners relating to grant are fabricated. By inviting the attention of the Court to paragraph 9 of the impugned order dated 27th April, 2018 (Annexure-K) passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.897/2011 (Revenue), it is argued by the learned Additional Advocate General that, no records were produced before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal to establish the grant made in their favour. He further contended that the documents referred to by the petitioners are relating to proposal made by the Government for grant of land, however, same had not reached logical end in granting the land in question in favour of the petitioners and as such, he sought for interference of this Court. 11. Sri. Prabhuling Navadgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5-Mutt submitted that the land - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26180 WP No. 30695 of 2018 in question has been allotted in favour of the respondent No.5- Mutt for Dasoha Centre as per Official Memorandum dated 18th August, 2010 (Annexure-H) and thereafter, Sale Deed dated 05th July, 2018 has been executed in favour of the respondent No.5-Mutt and therefore, he contended that, as the land in question is allotted in favour of the respondent No.5-Mutt, the petitioners have no legal right to challenge the same. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of SRI. KUMARASWAMY J. vs. THE STATE OF KEARNATAKA AND OTHERS made in Writ Petition No.20245 of 2010 disposed of on 08th December, 2015, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 contended that this Court in an identical circumstances, considering the provisions contained under Rule 10(2) and 27 of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 2007 upheld the allotment made in favour of the respondent No.5-Mutt and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition. 12. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, the following questions have to be answered in this petition: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26180 WP No. 30695 of 2018 1) Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of the land as per Official Memorandum dated 11th October, 1982 (Annexure-L)? 2) Whether the respondent-State is justified in establishing that the documents produced by the petitioners to substantiate the grant are not genuine? 3) Whether the grant of land in favour of the respondent No.5-Mutt as per Official Memorandum dated 18th August, 2010 (Annexure-H) is justified in law? 4) What order? 13. On perusal of the writ papers would indicate that the petitioners are belonged to Adi Karnataka community and have made an application, seeking grant of land bearing Survey No.42 of Kadaranahalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk as per Annexures 'R1' to 'R4' annexed to the affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru. The respondent-Government had initiated grant of Survey No.41 of Kadaranahalli Village in favour of five persons and the records have been built up as per the letter dated 31st July, 1982 (Annexure-A). On careful examination of the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26180 WP No. 30695 of 2018 Annexure-A would indicate that the land bearing Survey No.41 is not reserved for any other specific purpose and no 'Maliki' and further the survey report would indicate that the land is surrounded by Hiduvali lands and upset price was fixed at Rs.1,000/- per acre and payment of the upset price was waived insofar as the grantees, who belonged to Adi Karnataka community. The sketch pertaining to demarcation of the land in favour of the petitioners has been prepared at Annexure-B. It is forthcoming that the proceedings have been made in LND SR(4)126/81-82 to confirm the grant of land in favour of the petitioners. It is also forthcoming from the Official Memorandum dated 15th November, 1982 that the permission is granted under Rule 97(4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 to reduce the available extent of Gomal Land by 16 acres in Survey No.41 of Kadaranahalli Village and same has been signed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bengaluru Division. It is also forthcoming from the writ papers that as per Official Memorandum dated 11th October, 1982 (Annexure-L), 4 acres of land has been granted in favour of B.R. Narasimhamurthy and the land to an extent of 3 acres each has - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26180 WP No. 30695 of 2018 been granted in favour of Lakshmamma, Govindappa, Seetharamaiah and Venkatahanumaiah. 14. In the Official Memorandum dated 11th October, 1982 (Annexure-L), conditions have been stipulated and signature of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District is found. It is also forthcoming from the letter dated 23rd August, 1982 addressed by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub- Division to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District that the sanction is accorded for reduction of gomal land to an extent of 16 acres under Section 97(4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. On perusal of the writ papers, it would indicate that the applicant/petitioners herein have paid upset price in respect of the subject land, despite the same was waived insofar as Adi Karnataka community is concerned. Finally, Official Memorandum dated 11th October, 1982 (Annexure-L) has been issued by the respondent No.2-Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District and accordingly, granted the subject land in favour of the petitioners, with certain conditions to be fulfilled. I have perused the Register of the Dharkasth lands for cultivation produced at Annexure-N, wherein, the said document stipulates two grants namely - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26180 WP No. 30695 of 2018 47/81-82 and 48/81-82. The grant No.48/81-82 mentioned about the names of the applicant/petitioners herein insofar as the subject land is concerned. The respondent-Government is not disputing the Grant No.47/81-82, however questioning the genuineness of the Grant No.48/81-82. On careful examination of the official records produced by the Government particularly the Register of Dharkasth (Annexure-N) establishes the fact that the land in question has been granted in favour of petitioners herein. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the State Government cannot be permitted to urge that the Grant No.48/81-82 is fake and fraudulent. The affidavit of the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk dated 03rd March, 2025 refers to the application filed by the applicant/petitioners seeking grant of land and the letter dated 31st July, 1982 (Annexure-R5) addressed by the Tahsildar, Nelamangala Taluk to the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-Division refers to reduction of land and to grant the land in question subject to payment of upset price, Mahazar, Appendix in Revenue Form No.121 and Ahavalu Takte (Annexure-R7). In the backdrop of these aspects, on careful examination of official Memorandum dated 11th October, 1982 (Annexure-L) makes it - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26180 WP No. 30695 of 2018 clear that the subject land has been granted in favour of the petitioners. 15. Though the learned Additional Advocate General refers to the affidavit filed by the Regional Commissioner, Bengaluru Division, expressing doubt in respect of the documents in the office of the Regional Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, and the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North and Nelamangala Taluk and thereby, vehemently argued that the documents referred to by the petitioners are created and fabricated. In that aspect of the matter, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory makes it clear that, in the documents referred to by the office of the Regional Commissioner, the ink used in the documents is different and further the typed text marked as 'D3' to 'D6' are typed with the same Typewriter. It is also evident from the opinion that, no adverse opinion has been given as to fabrication of the document in respect of writings, signatures and writings/signatures marked as D1, D2; E1 to E5; D7, D8, E6, E7 and E8. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the respondent-State failed to establish that the documents produced by the petitioners are fake and fabricated. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26180 WP No. 30695 of 2018 16. It is also to be noted that the petitioners secured the documents referred to above relating to the grant made in their favour as certified copies from the office of the Tahsildar and the Regional Commissioner, which makes it clear that these documents were in the custody of the aforementioned offices. In that view of the matter, finding recorded by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at paragraphs 9 and 10 in the impugned order, is without basis and contrary to the documents produced by the respondent-State through the affidavits filed by the Tahsildar working at the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Tahsildar working at the office of the Regional Commissioner, Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk and further the averments in the affidavit filed by the Regional Commissioner makes it clear that, no documents have been produced before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and therefore, it is apt to arrive at a conclusion that, miscarriage of justice has been caused to the petitioners herein. Therefore, the points for consideration at Sl.1 and 2 are in favour of the petitioners herein and as such, the finding recorded by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Annexure-K requires to be set-aside. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26180 WP No. 30695 of 2018 17. Insofar as the grant of land made in favour of the respondent No.5-Mutt as per Official Memorandum dated 18th August, 2010 (Annexure-H) is concerned, on perusal of the averments in the writ papers and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is evident that the land in question, as on today is vacant land. For the reasons stated above, as to the fact that the Government has granted the land in question in favour of the petitioners is genuine and based on the original records, the petitioners have established the grant made by the Government in their favour, I am of the opinion that the official Memorandum dated 18Th August, 2010 (Annexure-L), granting subject land in favour of the respondent No.5-Mutt is to be set-aside, however, it is open for the respondent-State to allot suitable land in favour of the respondent No.5-Mutt in accordance with law, by following procedure contemplated under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and relevant rules in lieu of the land in question as claimed by the petitioners. In the result, I pass the following: O R D E R 1) Writ Petition is allowed; - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26180 WP No. 30695 of 2018 2) Official Memorandum dated 18th August, 2010 (Annexure-H) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District is hereby set-aside in respect of the subject land belonging to the petitioners as per the Official Memorandum dated 11th October, 1982 (Annexure-L); 3) Order dated 27th April, 2018 (Annexure-K) passed in Appeal No.897/2011 (Revenue) by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is hereby set- aside; 4) The *jurisdictional Tahsildar is directed to enter the name of petitioners in the revenue records in respect of the land in question forthwith and the respondent-State is directed to allot an alternative suitable land in favour of the respondent No.5-Mutt in view of quashing the official memorandum dated 18th August, 2010 (Annexure-H) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 82 *corrected vide Court Order dated 25.07.2025.