- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32883-DB WA No. 1933 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 1933 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, YELAHANKA, YELAHANKA DISTRICT-560 063. BENGALURU DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.S HARISH, GOVT. ADVOCATE) AND: SRI H GOVINDARAJU, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT SINGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 064. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a) CALL FOR RECORDS b) ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION No. 14825/21 (KLR), INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY ETC. Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32883-DB WA No. 1933 of 2024 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of IA No.1/2024, the same is allowed. Delay of 1031 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 24.01.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.14825/2021 [KLR-RES]. 3. The said petition was filed by respondent [writ petitioner] inter alia, praying that directions be issued to the appellants to consider his application dated 04.12.2020 and 09.03.2021, which were made for Phodi and Durasth. 4. The respondent had filed an online application for the aforesaid request for entering his name in respect of portion of the land measuring 5 acres in Survey No. 113/3 and 113/4 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32883-DB WA No. 1933 of 2024 Singanayakanahalli Village. The said land was acquired by respondent's father (Shri Hanumanthappa) by a registered Sale Deed dated 19.12.1975. The writ petitioner had submitted that after the demise of his father Sri Hanumanthappa, his children had partitioned the property and 20 guntas in Survey No.113/3 and 01 acre 20 guntas in Survey No.113/4 had fallen to the share of the writ petitioner. The name of the writ petitioner was also entered in the land records vide mutation bearing M.R. No.7/1994-95. 5. It is also material to note that the concerned authority had passed the order under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and had entered the name of the Government in land records on the assumption that the subject land was a part of Government Gomal land. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted and the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, found that the subject land was not Government gomal land. Accordingly, the entries made in the land record reflecting the subject land as Gomal land were rectified in terms of an order dated 29.08.2016. The records now reflect the name of the original grantee. In view of the above, there is no dispute that the land records correctly reflect the name of the right holders. The only issue that is required - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32883-DB WA No. 1933 of 2024 to be considered is regarding the demarcation of the land [Phodi and Durasth]. It appears that, the concerned authorities have not done so, for want of original title documents executed pre 1938. 6. The subject matter of the dispute is, essentially, centered around the insistence of the appellants to furnish such documents in this case. It is apparent that the said documents are not in possession of the respondent. This can be inferred from the fact that he has not submitted the same. The learned counsel for the appellants states that copies of the original records are not available with the respondents as well. 7. The learned Single Judge, in the given circumstances, directed the appellants to take steps for phodi and durasth as requested by the respondent. 8. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that pursuant to the impugned order steps have been taken and without insisting the original documents. He, however, submits that the appellants' limited grievance is, the impugned order should not be treated as a precedent. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32883-DB WA No. 1933 of 2024 9. The impugned order has been rendered in the facts as presented before the Court. Prima facie, we concur with the learned counsel that the impugned order cannot be taken as an authority for the absolute proposition that the concerned authorities cannot demand title documents under any circumstances. Given the limited grievance of the appellants, we leave it at that and say no more. The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. 10. All pending applications are also disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38