Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 40182 (KAR)

H.P. VENKATARAJU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/25633/2025 · 2025-09-04

R Devdas

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35035 WP No. 25633 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 25633 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. H.P. VENKATARAJU S/O. T. LATE PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT HEGGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 125. 2. H.P. MANJUNATH, S/O. T. LATE PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT HEGGAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJU M.K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA / M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35035 WP No. 25633 of 2025 KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL - 562 106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI DULY QUASHING THE ANNEXURE-A, I.E.. ORDER DATED 18.03.2025 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN R.A.(A) NO.207/2018-19 PERTAINING TO THE INAM LAND BEARING SY. NO.76/5 AND SY.NO.76/7 MEASURING 15.12 GUNTAS AND 14 GUNTAS REPECTIVELY OF HEGGAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA 3 HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at the instance of the Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, it appears that the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35035 WP No. 25633 of 2025 Assistant Commissioner took up the matter under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (for short, 'the Act') while contending that the land in question belongs to the Government and accordingly, the revenue entries which were standing from the year 1967 have been set aside by the impugned order while directing the Tahsildar to enter the name of the Government in column Nos.9 and 12. Learned counsel submits that when the petitioner preferred a revision petition before respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, the Deputy Commissioner has refused to entertain the revision petition. 3. Having regard to the facts narrated in the impugned order, it is clear that proceedings were initiated under Section 136(2) of the Act, only to remove the names of the petitioners from the revenue entries, which is not permissible if the contention of the Tahsildar is that the land belongs to the government. Appropriate proceedings have not been initiated at the hands of the competent authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act or before any competent civil Court, to get a declaration that the land is government land. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35035 WP No. 25633 of 2025 4. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is stayed and liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner is also directed to take up the revision petition, which will be filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. If such a revision petition is filed, the Deputy Commissioner shall consider the same in accordance with law and thereafter pass orders and dispose of the revision petition as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of four months from the date when which the revision petition will be filed by the petitioner. Till then, the impugned order shall stand stayed. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51 CT: BHK