- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38542 WP No. 20631 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 20631 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. JAYARAMAPPA @ JAYARAMAIAH S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 1(a) SMT. RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS W/O LATE JAYARAMAPPA @ JAYARAMAIAH 1(b) SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, D/O LATE JAYARAMAPPA @ JAYARAMAIAH 1(c) SRI. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O LATE JAYARAMAPPA @ JAYARAMAIAH 1(d) BYREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O LATE JAYARAMAPPA @ JAYARAMAIAH 1(e) SRI. MURALI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O LATE JAYARAMAPPA @ JAYARAMAIAH 1(f) RENUKA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O LATE JAYARAMAPPA @ JAYARAMAIAH 2. ANJANAPPA S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38542 WP No. 20631 of 2019 2(a) SMT. SAROJAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O LATE ANJANAPPA 2(b). SRI S.A. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O LATE ANJANAPPA 2(c). SMT. S.A. PRABHA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, D/O LATE ANJANAPPA LR'S OF PETITIONER-1 AND 2 ARE RESIDENTS OF M. SATHYAWARA VILLAGE SULEBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GURUPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY M.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, 1ST FLOOR, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE , DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114 3. THE ASSISTANCE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE HOSAKOTE TALUK, HOSAKOTE-562114. 4. S.M. KARAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38542 WP No. 20631 of 2019 5. SRI KEMPAIAH @ S.H. KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O LATE HANUMAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LR'S 5(a) SMT. KEMPAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/O LATE KEMPAIAH @ S.H.KEMPANNA 5(b) MUNIRATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, D/O LATE KEMPAIAH @ S.H.KEMPANNA 5(c) MUNINARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE KEMPAIAH @ S.H.KEMPANNA 5(d) RENU KUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE KEMPAIAH @ S.H.KEMPANNA 5(e) SAVITHRAMMA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, D/O LATE KEMPAIAH @ S.H.KEMPANNA 5(f) PRAMILA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, D/O LATE KEMPAIAH @ S.H.KEMPANNA ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF M. SATYAWARA VILLAGE SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114 AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.09.2025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3; SRI. K. SHIVA SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5(A) TO 5(C) AND ALSO FOR RESPONDENT NOS.5(D) TO 5(E) VIDE ORDER DATED 23.09.2025; - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38542 WP No. 20631 of 2019 VIDE ORDER DATED 15.07.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.5(F) IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER / DIRECTION DATED 14.03.2019 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN MAG(1) CR.251/2018-19 AS PER ANNEXURE-Q BY DECLARING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND OPPOSED TO LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged an order bearing No.MAG(1) CR. 251/2018-19 dated 14.03.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 directing the respondent No.3 to grant protection to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to cut the eucalyptus trees grown in survey Nos.115 and 116 of M.Sathyawara Village measuring 1.08 acres each. 2. It is contended that the father of the deceased petitioners, Sri.Muniswamappa was in unauthorised occupation of 2 acres of land in survey No.27 of M.Sathyawara Village, SulibeleHobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru. Similarly, other villages were also in unauthorized occupation of various extents - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38542 WP No. 20631 of 2019 of land in the aforesaid survey number. The State Government had granted certain lands in favour of landless persons, including the father of the deceased petitioners. It is contended that 2 acres of land was granted in favour of the father of the deceased petitioners by the erstwhile Government of Mysore in the year 1949-50 under the Grow More Food scheme (henceforth referred to as ‘GMF’ for short). It is contended that though 2 acres was granted, the possession was restricted to only 1 acre in the aforesaid survey number. The name of the father of the deceased petitioners was entered in the revenue records pursuant to M.R.No.2/1981-82. It is contended that after the death of the father of the deceased petitioners, the deceased petitioners succeeded to the said property. The name of the deceased petitioner No.1 was entered in the revenue records pursuant to M.R.No.9/1998-99. Thereafter, at a partition between the deceased petitioner Nos.1 and 2, the property fell to the share of the deceased petitioner No.2 and his name was entered in column No.12 of the RTC. The property was reassigned to survey No. 27/P3 to an extent of 1 acre. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38542 WP No. 20631 of 2019 3. It is contended that the land in survey No.27 was a vast extent of land. The petitioner No.2 was not able to eke out his livelihood by cultivating 1 acre of land and therefore, deceased petitioner No.2 started cultivating the adjoining 2 acres 2 guntas in survey No.27. Considering the physical possession and enjoyment of the said land, the Deputy Commissioner also granted 2 acres 2 guntas of land in the aforesaid survey number to the deceased petitioner No.2. After such grant, the land measuring 2 acres 2 guntas was reassigned as survey No.114. The name of the deceased petitioner No.2 was entered in the revenue records. A saguvali chit was issued in favour of the deceased petitioner No.2 in L.N.D.S.R.231/1977-78 dated 07.02.1979. 4. It is contended that the land granted to the deceased petitioner No.2 bearing new survey No.114 lay on the southern portion of the survey number and on the northern side lay 1 acre of land held by the petitioner No.2. 5. It is contended that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 were in possession of 24 guntas each in the said survey number. Nonetheless, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 in collusion - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38542 WP No. 20631 of 2019 with the respondent Nos.2 and 3 managed to obtain spurious and fabricated entries in the revenue records to an extent of 1 acre 8 guntas each. It is contended that no notice was caused to them and without verifying the authenticity of the documents in favour of the respondent Nos.4 and 5, the property in possession of the father of the respondent No.4 was reassigned survey No.115 and the property in possession of the respondent No.5 was reassigned survey No.116. It is contended that the Akarband and the sketch was prepared on 22.12.1992, which were spurious. The petitioners therefore filed an application seeking the order dated 22.12.1992. However, instead of furnishing the copy of the said order, the additional director of land records issued an endorsement dated 24.06.2017 stating that no such records were available in the office. The petitioners filed an application for seeking a copy of the saguvli chit, the official memorandum, the chalan and sketch in L.N.D.S.R.24/1980-1981 for which an endorsement was issued on 02.01.2018 stating that no such records were available. Therefore, WP No.12707/2017 was filed challenging the order dated 24.11.1992 and 22.02.1992, which is stated to be pending. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38542 WP No. 20631 of 2019 6. After the writ petition was filed, the petitioner No.2 died and his legal representatives were brought on record in the said writ petition. When the matter was listed before the Court, the Court perused the endorsements issued by the Tahsildar that the records were not available and held that the endorsement was correct and directed the Government Advocate to secure information regarding the said documents. 7. It is contended that the bifurcation of survey Nos.114 and 115 was not known to the petitioners and they were not served with any notice. They contend that the names of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 were entered in the revenue records on the basis of an alleged grant order bearing No.L.N.D.S.R.24/1980-1981 and their names were entered in the revenue records pursuant to MR.No.5/1980-81 and MR.No.4/1980-81 respectively. Based on such spurious documents, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 tried to enter into the property based on an ex-parte order of injunction in OS Nos.67/2010 and 74/2010. The deceased petitioners contested the suit. However, the suit was decreed and an appeal was filed - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38542 WP No. 20631 of 2019 in RA.No.67/2014 and RA.No.9/2015, which are stated to be pending. 8. The petitioners contend that their land measuring 2 acres 2 guntas in survey No.27 now assigned new survey No.114 and the land measuring 1 acre in old survey No.27 now assigned new survey No.27/P3, is a compact block. There exists a Kathale fence bifurcating these lands from the lands of the respondent Nos.4 and 5. They contend that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 never interfered with their possession and the bifurcation of these properties was clearly visible. They contend that being aggrieved by the alleged grant made in favour of the respondent Nos.4 and 5, the petitioners filed an appeal before the respondent No.2 in RUC(A) No.18/2011-12. The said appeal was dismissed in terms of an order dated 31.07.2018, which is questioned in WP No.11351/2019. 9. It is contended that during the pendency of WP No.12707/2017, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 tried to interfere with their possession of the land bearing survey No.27/P3, which is adjacent to the land where the respondent Nos.4 and 5 are in occupation of 24 guntas each and they tried to cut and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38542 WP No. 20631 of 2019 remove the eucalyptus trees on 08.03.2018. The legal representative of the deceased petitioner No.2 lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police, who registered NCR No.23/2018 and the police directed the parties to approach the civil Court and advised the respondent Nos.4 and 5 not to take law into their hands. When things stood thus, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 entered into the properties of the petitioners on 27.04.2019 and tried to cut and remove the trees and on enquiry, the jurisdiction police handed over a copy of the direction dated 14.03.2019 issued by the respondent No.2 directing the respondent No.3 to provide protection for cutting and removing the eucalyptus trees standing on survey Nos.115 and 116 measuring 1 acre 8 guntas each. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 based on such an order, had entered into the property bearing survey No.27/P3. The petitioners therefore being aggrieved by the said order, are before this Court. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 had filed OS Nos.67/2010 and 74/2010, which though was decreed is questioned in RA No.67/2014 and RA No.9/2015 and the same is pending consideration. He contends that when the appeals are pending, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38542 WP No. 20631 of 2019 the respondent Nos.4 and 5 cannot take law into their hands by cutting and removing the eucalyptus trees. He therefore contends that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is interfering in the course of justice and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. He also submits that the grant in favour of the father of the deceased petitioners was much earlier than the grant in favour of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and therefore, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 cannot take law into their hands to cut and remove the standing eucalyptus trees. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 submits that the suit filed by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 in OS Nos.67/2010 and 74/2010 was decreed for perpetual injunction, thereby recognizing that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 are in lawful possession of the land granted to them. He contends that though the petitioners have challenged the said decree in RA Nos.67/2014 and 9/2015, there is no order of stay of the judgment and decree. Thus, he contends that the petitioners are entitled to cut and remove the trees. 12. The learned Additional Government Advocate for the official respondents submitted that since the challenge to - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38542 WP No. 20631 of 2019 the grant made in favour of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 was challenged before the respondent No.2, which was dismissed and WP No.11351/2019 is filed before this Court, which is pending consideration and the suit filed by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 was decreed, the respondent No.2 was justified in directing the respondent No.3 to grant protection to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to cut and remove the trees. 13. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5. 14. The deceased petitioners claimed that the land measuring1 acre in survey No.27 was granted to their father under the GMF scheme. They also contend that the revenue records in respect of the said survey number was made out in the name of their father and thereafter, it was transferred to their names and ultimately the revenue records stood in the name of the deceased petitioner No.2. They have questioned the grant of survey No.27 to the father of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 in terms of grant bearing No.L.N.D.S.R.24/1980-81 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38542 WP No. 20631 of 2019 before the respondent No.2, which was dismissed. In the meanwhile, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 had filed suit for perpetual injunction based on the aforesaid grant and the trial Court after perusing the documents, decreed the suit on 19.12.2014 and 28.07.2014. The petitioners have filed RA Nos.67/2014 and 9/2015. It is stated that there is no stay of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 15. In that view of the matter, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 were entitled to protect their possession and undertake any developmental activities, including cutting and removing the standing eucalyptus trees. The respondent No.2 has therefore rightly issued a direction to the respondent No.3 to provide protection to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to cut and remove the standing eucalyptus trees in survey Nos.115 and 116 of M.Sathyawara Village. If the petitioners are aggrieved by such an order, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to make appropriate application in RA No.67/2014 and RA No.9/2015. They cannot approach this Court challenging the direction issued by the respondent No.2. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38542 WP No. 20631 of 2019 16. In that view of the matter, this petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to make appropriate application in RA No.67/2014 and RA No.9/2015 to restrain the respondent Nos.4 and 5 from cutting and removing the trees. If such an application is filed, the Appellate Court would consider the application in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10