- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7559 WP No. 17844 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.17844 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. HEMAKKA W/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT KANNUR VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 049. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N.S. SRIRAJ GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001 KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN K G ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009 KARNATAKA. 3. THE TAHSILDHAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7559 WP No. 17844 of 2024 KR PURAM BENGALURU - 560 036 KARNATAKA. 4. RAJIV GANDHI HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED CAUVERY BHAVAN 9TH FLOOR C AND F BLOCK K G ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009 KARNATAKA. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR REG: UNDER COMPANIES ACT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. A. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.05.2018 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, IN NO. LND(G)CR.72/17-18 (ANNX-F). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER In the present petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned allotment order issued by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner, through which 8 acres of land in Survey No.50 of Kannur Village has been allotted without considering the prior grant of 3 acres in the same survey number to the petitioner. Challenging this - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7559 WP No. 17844 of 2024 allotment in favour of respondent No.4/Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation Limited, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking relief. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4/Housing Corporation. 3. Petitioner is asserting title in respect of 3 acres of land in Survey No.50 of Kannur Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk based on a grant made by the competent authority. Petitioner places reliance on the official memorandum dated 26.12.1978 issued by the Deputy Commissioner which is evidenced at Annexure-A followed by grant certificate dated 28.10.1979 issued by the jurisdictional Tahsildar, which is evidenced at Annexure-B. The survey sketch is also produced, which is evidenced at Annexure-C. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7559 WP No. 17844 of 2024 4. The short point that needs consideration is as to whether respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner had power to divert the land which is already granted to the petitioner. My answer is emphatically "No". Insofar as the genuineness of the grant obtained by the petitioner, the said issue is also given a quietus by the Special Deputy Commissioner which is evidenced at Annexure-H. The Special Deputy Commissioner having subjected the grant to an enquiry has come to the conclusion that the grant made in favour of the petitioner to an extent of 3 acres in Survey No.50 is a genuine grant and the proceedings are dropped. This document appears to be a crucial document and would clinch the entire controversy between the parties. 5. Further, it is submitted that based on the enquiry conducted by the Special Deputy Commissioner, the revenue authorities have acted upon the findings, resulting in the restoration of the petitioner's name for an extent of 3 acres in Survey No.50. Consequently, this - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7559 WP No. 17844 of 2024 Court holds that the allotment made in favour of respondent No.4/Housing Corporation remains valid, excluding the 3 acres of land granted to the petitioner, as evidenced in Annexures-" A, B, and C". 6. To prevent future disputes, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No.3/Tahsildar, in coordination with the Assistant Director of Land Records, to conduct phodi and durasth, ensuring that the petitioner’s granted land of 3 acres in Survey No.50 is properly demarcated. In this regard, either the petitioner or respondent No.4/Housing Corporation may submit an online application for necessary action. Upon receipt of such an application, respondent No.3 shall take necessary steps to exclude the granted land from the allotment. If any surplus land is available in Survey No.50, the extent shall be adjusted in alignment with the allotment order. 7. With these observations, this Court proceeds to pass the following: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7559 WP No. 17844 of 2024 ORDER i. The writ petition is partly allowed. ii. The allotment made in favour of respondent No.4 for an extent of 8 acres in Survey No.50 is upheld, subject to the exclusion of the 3 acres granted to the petitioner. iii. Both the petitioner and respondent No.4 are permitted to submit an online application for phodi and durasth. Upon receiving such an application, the Tahsildar, in coordination with the Assistant Director of Land Records, shall conduct phodi and durasth and ensure the demarcation of the petitioner’s granted land measuring 3 acres. iv. If any surplus land remains in Survey No.50, respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner is authorized to readjust the extent while ensuring that the portions held by the grantees are excluded. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 2