- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24729 WP No. 13778 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.13778 OF 2020 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. T. RAMESH S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT KODATHI GATE, RR ROAD, CARMELLARAM POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU -560035. 2. M.T. VENKATESH S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT KODATHI GATE, RR ROAD, CARMELLARAM POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560035. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. C.M.NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJENDRA M S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BY ITS SECRETARY BENGALURU -560001. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24729 WP No. 13778 of 2020 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT K.G.ROAD. BENGALURU -560009. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-1 BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU -560009. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU -560009. 5. 6. 7. 8. THE TAHASILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU -560036. KARNATAKA DALITA ACTION COMMITTEE SRI. PRAMOD THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS OFFICE AT NO.50, PALACE LOWER ORCHARDS BENGALURU - 560 003. SRI. M.S. SUNIL KUMAR S/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.129, 6TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095. SRI. RAJU G. S/O GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.3, 7TH 'F' MAIN ROAD SAMPANGIRAMA NAGARA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24729 WP No. 13778 of 2020 9. 10. 11. BENGALURU -560 027. SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.190, VIVERS COLONY WARD NO.5 INDIRANAGAR ANEKAL TOWN BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. BENGALURU - 562 106. SRI. ABHILASH V. S/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.NERIGA VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU - 562 106. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI D/O CHIKKABORAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT THENGINAMARADAPALYA VILLAGE YEDIYURU HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK - 572 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-5; SRI. I. THARANATH POOJARY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR A/W SRI. M.R. BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-6; SRI. Y.D.SHIVASHANKARA, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING RESPONDENTS R-7 TO R-11) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.7.2019 PASSED IN RRT/CR(E) 34/2012-13 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, THEREBY FORFEITING 4 ACRES 35 GUNTAS OF LAND INCLUSIVE OF 2 ACRES OF - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24729 WP No. 13778 of 2020 LAND OF THE PETITIONERS IN SY.NO.48 OF KACHAMARNAHALLI VILLAGE, VARHTUR HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK VIDE ANNEXURE-A.; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2009 BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN SO FAR 4 ACRES 35 GUNTAS OF LAND INCLUSIVE OF 2 ACRES OF LAND OF THE PETITIONERS IN SY.NO.48 OF KACHAMARNAHALLI VILLAGE, VARHTUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK VIDE ANNEXURE-K, RESERVING SAID 4 ACRES 35 GUNTAS AS ILLEGAL AND IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO EFFECT THE KATHA PERTAINING TO 2 ACRES OF THE LAND IN SY.NO.48 OF KACHAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, VARHTUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK BASED ON THE GRANT DATED 17.8.1951 AND REPRESENTATION DATED 15.3.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-G. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH CAV ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing order dated 19.07.2019 in RRT/CR(E).34/2012-13 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent No.3 issued by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24729 WP No. 13778 of 2020 the respondent No.3, order dated 30.06.2009 (Annexure-K) issued by the respondent No.2, inter- alia seeking direction to the respondents to effect khata in respect of the subject land based on the order of grant dated 17.08.1951 and to consider the representation dated 15.03.2010 (Annexure-G). 2. Relevant facts for adjudication of the case as averred in the writ petition are that, father of the petitioners-Thimmarayappa was granted a land bearing Sy No. 48 of Kachamaranahalli, Bangalore East Taluk, measuring 02 acres, as per the grant order dated 17.08.1951 (Annexure-B). The grant certificate is placed on record as Annexure-C. It is stated that, the grant made in favour of the father of the petitioners, was questioned in RA No.48/1951-52 and same came to be dismissed on 07.10.1952 (Annexure-D). The said order was confirmed before the Revenue Commissioner, Mysore in appeal in RA - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24729 WP No. 13778 of 2020 No.142/1953-54 vide order dated 21.09.1953 (Annexure-E). It is the case of the petitioners that, father of the petitioners- Thimmarayappa, died on 15.01.2003, and thereafter, the petitioners continued to be in cultivation of the land in question. Petitioner No.2 has made an application for khata transfer on 15.03.2010 (Annexure-G), and thereafter, the Revenue Inspector conducted mahazar and report of the Revenue Inspector is produced at Annexure-H. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.5 based on the report at Annexure-H, referred the matter to respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, under Section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (Annexure-J) to verify the genuineness of the grant made in favour of the father of the petitioners. During the pendency of the said proceedings, land to an extent of 04 acres, 35 guntas, in Sy No.48 of Kachamaranahalli Village, was reserved for allotment - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24729 WP No. 13778 of 2020 of sites to the people who lost sites in Benniganahalli Village as per order dated 30.06.2009 (Annexure-K). The petitioners contend that the allotment, made in favour of respondent No.6, including their land is illegal and that the respondent-authorities failed to consider the prior grant made in favour of Thimmarayappa. Hence, the petitioners have presented this writ petition. 3. I have heard Sri. C. M Nagabhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Rajendra M.S. for the petitioners; Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State; Sri. I. Tharanath Poojary, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. M.R. Balakrishna, for respondent No.6 and Sri. Y.D. Shivashankar, learned counsel appearing for impleading respondent in IA No.1 of 2025. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24729 WP No. 13778 of 2020 4. Sri. C. M. Nagabhushan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, land in question has been granted in favour of father of the petitioners and same is evident as per Annexure-E to the writ petition. He also referred to the order dated 17.08.1951 (Annexure-B) on the file of the Revenue Commissioner to substantiate the grant. He further contended that, despite the land is in cultivation of the father of the petitioners and the petitioners for more than sixty years, allotting the very same land to the respondent No.6 without hearing the petitioners nor considering the factual aspects on record, which requires interference of this Court. In this regard, he refers to the judgment of this Court reported in Umesh v. Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga District, Shimoga in (2009) 3 Kant LJ 639 (DB), and order dated 18.11.2022 in W.P.No. 33546 of 2015 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24729 WP No. 13778 of 2020 and argued that, the allotment made in favour of the respondent No.6 is contrary to law and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 5. Per contra, Sri. I.Tharanatha Poojary, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 submitted that, nothing is stated in the writ petition with regard to delay and laches in challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent- authorities. He further submitted that the petitioners failed to produce credible documentary evidence to prove the alleged grant made in favour of their father- Thimmarayappa. The alleged grant certificate at Annexure-B, produced by the petitioners is fabricated document to knock off the property in question. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6 further argued that the contemporaneous documents relating to issuance of grant order are relevant to consider in order to ascertain the genuineness of grant - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24729 WP No. 13778 of 2020 is concerned and in the absence of the same, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. It is also argued by learned Senior Counsel that, the petitioners are having efficacious remedy under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Insofar as allotment made in favour of the respondent No.6 on 30.06.2009, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6 submitted that, the said allotment has been made to accommodate economically weaker section of the society and therefore, he contended that the writ petition is misconceived and lacks the support of genuine and credible documents of grant. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. In order to buttress his argument learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HMT Ltd, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24729 WP No. 13778 of 2020 vs. Rukmni and others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2614. 7. Sri. I.Tharanath Poojary, learned Senior Counsel, further submitted that, the proceedings under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 empowers the Deputy Commissioner to examine and rectify revenue records under Sections 128 and 129 of the Act and if the order relied upon by the applicant does not really exists, then the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to nullify such revenue orders passed by the subordinate authorities. In this regard, he refers to the judgment of this Court in the case of Jayamma vs. State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.6872 of 2013 disposed of on 24.01.2020 and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24729 WP No. 13778 of 2020 8. Sri. Y.D. Shivashankara, learned counsel appearing for the impleading applicants submitted that impleading applicants are the beneficiaries of the sites granted by the State Government in terms of the GO dated 30.06.2009 and therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Learned Additional Government Advocate argued on similar lines and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of the original records, the core question to be answered in this writ petition as to whether the subject land is granted in favour of the father of the petitioners -Thimmarayappa? The petitioners claim that, the subject land has been granted to their father at an upset price of Rs.15 per - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24729 WP No. 13778 of 2020 acre, as per Annexure-B to the writ petition in a proceedings before the Sub Division Office, Bangalore Sub -Division so also in a proceedings in RA No.142 of 1952-53 before the Revenue Commissioner in Mysore, Bangalore. Undisputedly, other than these two documents, no other documents have been produced by the petitioners, seeking claim with regard to land in question. Even, before the proceedings in RA No.142 of 1952-53, at Sl No.12, it is stated as "Thimmarayappa, son of ……", which makes it clear that, address of the father of the petitioners is not forthcoming and no date has been mentioned in the proceedings at Annexure-A and same is disputed by the respondents and therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. 11. It is also to be noted that, on careful examination of Annexure-C, wherein, the original - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24729 WP No. 13778 of 2020 grant has not been made in favour of the said Thimmarayappa. If at all, the grant has been made as per Annexure-C, respondent-authority would have issued the grant order, Saguvali Chit, and also the mutation has been made pursuant to the same. It is also to be noted that, name of the father of the petitioners, has not shown in the RTC extracts, and in that view of the matter, taking into consideration, the finding recorded by the respondent No.3 at Annexure- A is just and proper and no interference is called for in this writ petition. That apart, the respondent No.3 has evaluated the claim made by the petitioners along with the original records and arrived at a conclusion that, no grant has been made in favour of father of the petitioners. I have also carefully examined the original records produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate wherein, the name of the father of the petitioners does not find place in the revenue - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24729 WP No. 13778 of 2020 records. In that view of the matter, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. 10. It is also argued by learned Senior Counsel Sri. I Tharanath Poojary that, writ petition is liable to be dismissed, not only on merits of the case but also on the ground of delay and laches. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the impugned order dated 30.06.2009 (Annexure-K), was passed to reserve the land in question for houseless persons and petitioners came to know from the respondents belatedly. The present writ petition has been filed after a lapse of 11 years of allotment made in favour of respondent no.6 and no satisfactory explanation has been provided for condoning such a prolonged delay in challenging the impugned order at Annexure-K. In this regard, judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HMT Ltd. vs. Rukmini - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24729 WP No. 13778 of 2020 and Others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2614 is aptly applicable to the facts of the case. In this regard, I have carefully examined the averments made in the writ petition, wherein, no acceptable reasons has been assigned to challenge the allotment made in favour of private respondents belatedly and on this score also, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as the pleadings in the writ petition do not adequately support their claim, nor do they provide justifiable reasons to condone the inordinate delay of 11 years in challenging Annexure-K. Be that as it may, the petitioners claim grant made in favour of their father, in the year 1951 and the father of the petitioners died during the year 2003 and during his lifetime also, he never sought for possession or claimed rights over the land in question and therefore, I find force in the submission made by Sri. I. Tharanath Poojary, learned Senior counsel for the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24729 WP No. 13778 of 2020 respondent No.6. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits, both on substantive grounds and on account of unexplained delay and laches. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 89