- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18987 WP No. 15208 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.15208 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. K.A. DEVARAJ S/O LATE ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO. G-3, V S RAIN TREE APARTMENT, NO.9, GURUMURTHY STREET, HALSURU, BENGALURU - 560008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009. 3. THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL - 562106. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18987 WP No. 15208 of 2025 4. SMT. SAROJAMMA S.M. D/O MUNISWAMY REDDY, W/O SREENATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, R/AT NO. 577, 11TH MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR 5TH BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560041. 5. SRI. S.G. JAGADISHCHANDRA S/O LATE S G GUBBASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R/AT NO. 36, 2ND MAIN, 4TH CROSS, CHAMRAJPET, BENGALURU - 560018. 6. SRI. ANANDAKUMAR S/O LATE BYLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 7. SMT. PADMA W/O ANANDKUMAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 8. SRI. ASHWATHNARAYANA @ NARAYANAPPA S/O EERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 9. SRI. SIDDAREDDY @ SIDDAPPA S/O EERAPPA , AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 9 ARE R/AT SARJAPURA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK-562125. 10. SRI. C. MUNIRAJU S/O T M CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT DODDATHIMMASANDRA VILLAGE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18987 WP No. 15208 of 2025 SRI AYAPPASWAMY TRADERS, SARJAPURA POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. R. HEMANTH RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R10; NOTICE IN RESPECT OF R5 TO R9 DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 27.05.2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN RA (A) NO.202/2025 ANNEXURE-A; QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.05.2025 BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN MR NO.T160/2024-25 ANNEXURE-U BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 02.05.2025 passed by respondent No.2 in R.A.(A) No.202/2025 as per Annexure-A. 2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18987 WP No. 15208 of 2025 3. Sri. K. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein has not been heard in the matter and also the second respondent has hurriedly passed the order within a period of two months without considering the factual aspects on record as the land in question has been converted by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District on 22.02.2013 (Annexure-F) and accordingly, he submitted that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to interfere with the change of khata effected by respondent No.3. 3. Sri. R. Hemanth Raj, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 10, sought to justify the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 and submitted that pursuant to the order passed at Annexure-A, the competent authorities have implemented the order by changing khata and therefore, the writ petition cannot be accepted. It is also submitted by Sri.Hemanthraj that the petitioner has to avail the remedy under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and therefore, the writ petition has to be dismissed in limine. It is also contended by Sri.Hemanth Raj that respondent No.2 is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18987 WP No. 15208 of 2025 having the jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order passed by respondent No.3, modifying the khata and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Per contra, Smt. Navya Shekar, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned order at Annexure-A. 5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the averments made in the petition and the finding recorded by respondent No.2. On perusal of Annexure-A would indicate that respondents therein have failed to appear before respondent No.2 despite issuance of notice by way of newspaper publication. With this backdrop of the case, as the petitioner herein has not been heard in the matter and as also learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 22.02.2013 (Annexure-F), wherein the subject land has been converted into non agricultural purpose, it is noted that the said aspect does not find a place in the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-A. In that view of the matter, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18987 WP No. 15208 of 2025 though Sri.Hemanth Raj, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 10 submitted that petitioner herein is having the alternative remedy to approach the competent authority under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, however, in view of the fact that a fair hearing has to be given to all the parties concerned, and upon considering the order dated 22.02.2013, I feel that it is a fit case to remand the matter to the respondent No.2 to re-consider the entire case on merits after affording a fair opportunity of hearing to both parties. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 02.05.2025 in R.A.(A) No.202/2025 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to respondent No.2 to consider the case of the parties afresh, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18987 WP No. 15208 of 2025 (iii) All the contentions of the parties are kept open. (iv) Since parties are represented through their learned counsel, and as the learned counsel appearing for the parties sought for expeditious hearing by respondent No.2, parties are directed to appear before the respondent No.2 on 23.06.2023 at 3.00 p.m. Upon appearance of the parties, respondent No.2 is directed to complete the entire proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (v) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30