- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15635 WP No. 35503 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 35503 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. NAGAVENI, W/O BALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT INDRASANAHALLI VILLAGE, HEGGANAGALLI POST, KUNDANAN HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GAONKAR DINESH NEELKANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION BHAVAN, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANAN HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA BUILDING, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA BUILDING, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15635 WP No. 35503 of 2024 M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT 5. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI - 562 110. 6. SRI. PRAVEEN R. S/O LATE RAJANNA E.P, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 7. SRI. R. PRAMOD, S/O LATE RAJANNA E.P, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 8. SRI. R. NAVEEN, S/O LATE RAJANNA E.P, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 6, 7 AND 8 ARE RESIDING AT INDRASANAHALLI VILLAGE, HEGGANAGALLI POST, KUNDANAN HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. M.B. NAVAGUND, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. S. SUMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R8) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 16/05/2016 PASSED BY THE R1 IN REVISION PETITION NO. 109/2015-16 (ANN-Q) AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15635 WP No. 35503 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER A proceeding was initiated at the behest of the Tahsildar before the Deputy Commissioner since the Tahsildar was of the view that the genuineness of grant in favor of the respondents was doubtful. 2. The Deputy Commissioner treated the said request as a proceeding under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and he ultimately passed an order holding that the documents that were produced before him did indicate that there was a grant in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the initiation of the proceedings after 44 years of the grant was incorrect. 3. The Deputy Commissioner accordingly ordered the restoration and continuation of the Khata in favor of the contesting respondent - Sri. E.P. Rajana as per M.R.No.5/76-77 and dropped the proceedings. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15635 WP No. 35503 of 2024 4. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition contending that he is in unauthorized occupation of the subject land and his possession has been reflected in several records and the same is also acknowledged by the authorities. 5. Arguments are sought to be advanced that the Official Memorandums were prepared and issued by the Deputy Commissioner holding that the petitioner was entitled for a grant and the order of the Deputy Commissioner, which is impugned in the writ petition, by which, it is held that there is an order of grant in favour of the respondent, would severely prejudice the petitioner herein. 6. In my view, none of the arguments advanced by the petitioner have any merit. 7. It is to be stated here that the proceedings under section 136(3) of the Act were initiated before the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15635 WP No. 35503 of 2024 Deputy Commissioner by the Tahsildar, since the Tahsildar entertained a doubt regarding genuineness of the grant made in favor of Sri. E.P. Rajana. Essentially, these proceedings were therefore only between Sri. E.P. Rajana and the Revenue Authorities. 8. The Deputy Commissioner being the revisional authority, on verification of the records, has concluded that there was a grant in favor of Sri. E.P. Rajana and therefore, the revenue entries should reflect the said grant and he has restored the entries in favour of Sri. E.P. Rajana as per M.R.No.5/76-77. 9. In my view, the petitioner who is contending that he is in unauthorized occupation cannot have any locus standi to challenge an order, by which, a proceeding under Section 136(3) of the Act have been dropped by the Deputy Commissioner. Consequently, I see no merit in the writ petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15635 WP No. 35503 of 2024 10. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's application for regularization is still pending consideration and the order of the Deputy Commissioner should not come in the way of consideration of his application. 11. If the application filed by the writ petitioner is pending consideration, it is obvious that the authorities would take a view on the matter and pass appropriate orders, but that cannot be a ground to entertain a claim against an order passed under Section 136(3) of the Act passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69