- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17002 WP No. 50190 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 50190 OF 2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI T M RAJU S/O LATE B KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT FORT, DEVANAHALLI TOWN BENGALURU DISTRICT-5621100 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V ANAND., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001 REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY 2. THE TAHASILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK DEVANAHALLI-562110. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANT OF LAND RECORDS BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU-560001. 4. 4(a) SRI K DHARMARAO SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT YUGANDHARI D/O LATE K DHARMARAO Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17002 WP No. 50190 of 2018 4(b) SRI K SRINIVAS S/O LATE K DHARMARAO 4(c) SMT KAVITHA D/O LATE K DHARMARAO 4(d) SMT GEETHA D/O LATE K DHARMARAO R-4(a) TO R-4(d) ALL ARE R/AT NO 290, 2ND MAIN, 10TH CROSS, VIJAYA BANK COLONY BILEKAHALLI BENGALURU -560076 5. SRI SEETHARAMAIAH SURVEY SUPERVISOR, TAHASILDAR OFFICE DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562 110. 6. SRI S V SURESH S/OLATE S R VENKATAKRISHNAIAH No. 1130, 12TH MAIN, 100 FEET ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560008 7. SRI S R VENKATESH S A R AROMATIC NO 4, 345, 9TH MAIN ROAD, PEENYA 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560058 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3 AND R-5; SRI. N. SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-4(a – d); SRI. AKASH P HOTI., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. GANGABAI., ADVOCATE FOR R-6 & R-7) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO-SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 15.04.2016 IN G.R.P. NO.4/2008-09 C/W GRP 8/09-10 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNX-A, ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17002 WP No. 50190 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. Two revisions were filed under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (“the Act”) in GRP.4/2008-09 and GRP.8/2009-10 by S.V.Suresh, M/s.SVR Aromatics and T.M.Raju, challenging the phodi and durasti conducted in Sy.No.55, which had been assigned Sy.No.79 and which was being claimed by both the revision petitioners as well as K.Dharma Rao. 2. The Deputy Commissioner instead of considering the validity of phodi and durasti has proceeded to pass the order in the following terms: “PɼÀV£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ ¥ÀAiÀiÁðªÉÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, zÉêÀ£ÀºÀ½îÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀܼÀ ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁr ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ CfðAiÀÄAvÉ ªÀÄÄvÁ宪ÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÛ ªÀÄĤgÁªÀÄAiÀÄå JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£Éà ¨ÁèPï£À°è C£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀ°èzÀÄÝ PÉ zsÀªÀÄðgÁªï gÀªÀgÀÄ 2£Éà ¨ÁèPï£À°è |J-20UÀÄAmÉ C£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀÅzÁV ¥ÀAiÀiÁðªÉÃPÀëPÀjAzÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀܼÀ ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÉüÉAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀ f¦JzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17002 WP No. 50190 of 2018 ¥ÀgÀ ¢£Éñï JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁæªÀĸÀÜgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄzÀ°è C¼ÀvÉ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀħgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ 1£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀAvÉ ¥Àæ²ßvÀ d«ÄäUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï, zÉêÀ£ÀºÀ½î PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è nPÀÆåJ¯ïJ£ïr.J¸ïDgï 273/2010-11 ¢£ÁAPÀ:03-03-2012gÀAvÉ £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉ £ÀqÉzÀÄ ²æà nJA.gÁdÄ ©£ï PÀȵÀÚ¥Àà CªÀgÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß -C£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀ°è®èzÀ PÁgÀt, ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛ®èzÀ PÁgÀt ºÉZÀÄѪÀj zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ EªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀeÁPÀj¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÁzÀ f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀªÀjUÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÀÆPÀAzÁAiÀÄ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1964gÀ PÀ®A 136(3)gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É ¸À°è¸À®Ä wêÀiÁð¤¹zÉ. ¸À.£ÀA 79gÀ 1J-20UÀÄAmÉ ªÀÄAdÆjAiÀÄAvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀPÀÄÌ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀæAiÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ PÉ.zsÀªÀÄðgÁªï ©£ï ¸ÀħâgÁªï gÀªÀjUÉ SÁAiÀÄAUÉƽ¸À®Ä wêÀiÁð¤¹zÉ JAzÀÄ 03-03-2012gÀAzÀÄ DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀPÁgÀt 4£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀ vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÁVgÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆ® ªÀÄAdÆj PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä DzÉò¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀæªÀħzÀݪÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ j«µÀ£ï CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÉAzÀÄ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ¥ÀqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.” 3. The Deputy Commissioner has accordingly proceeded to dismiss the revisions. Consequently, the present writ petition is filed challenging the said order. 4. In a proceeding initiated under Section 56 of the Act challenging the phodi and durasti, the Deputy Commissioner was only required to examine the correctness of phodi and durasti. The Deputy - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17002 WP No. 50190 of 2018 Commissioner, on the other hand, has come to the conclusion that this was a matter which was required to be referred to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act to examine the correctness of the grant. 5. It is to be stated here that the validity of the grant was not the subject matter of the revisions and therefore, the dismissal of revisions on this score cannot be sustained. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner with a specific direction that he will only consider whether the phodi and durasti conducted in respect of lands in revisions which were pending before him were correct or incorrect within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. However, this order will not come in the way of the concerned Deputy Commissioner initiating a proceeding under Section 136(3) of the Act, if he is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17002 WP No. 50190 of 2018 of the view that the entries in the revenue record are in any way irregular or improper. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0