- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32590-DB WA No. 1936 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST 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. 1936 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 1ST FLOOR, JILLADALITHA BHAVANA BEERASANDRA VILLAGE KUNDAVANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK DEVANAHALLI BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110 2. THE TAHSIDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, AGA) Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32590-DB WA No. 1936 of 2024 AND: 1. SMT. MANJULA W/O SRI SAVAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT LAKSHMI VATIKA 5TH CROSS, WEST OF CHORD ROAD MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BENGALURU - 560 086 PRESENTLY R/AT NO.79 1ST MAIN, 2ND STAGE 10TH CROSS, WEST OF CHORD ROAD MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BANGALORE - 560 086 2. SRI.C.B. RAJU S/O CHANNADEVARAPPA R/AT NO.14, NAGRTHPET DEVANAHALLI TOWN KASABA HOBLI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.12887/2019 (KLR-RR/SUR) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION No.12887/2019 (KLR-RR/SUR) FILED BY THE RESPONDENT No.1 HEREIN, ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32590-DB WA No. 1936 of 2024 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. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 21.12.2020 [impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.12887/2019 (KLR-RR/SUR) captioned 'Smt.Manjula v. the Deputy Commissioner and Ors'. 2. Respondent No.1 had filed the said writ petition impugning an order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District whereby, he had passed an order in a suo motu proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [the Act]. He had cancelled the revenue entries in respect of the lands aggregating 4 Acres and 10 Guntas located in Survey No.134 of Devanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District [the subject land] and had directed the Tahsildar of Devanahalli to reflect the subject land, in favour of the State Government, in revenue records. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32590-DB WA No. 1936 of 2024 3. The undisputed facts are that the said subject land was granted in favour of one Muniyappa on 21.07.1983. Saguvali Chit dated 27.08.1983 was also issued in favour of the said Muniyappa. He sold the subject land in favour of respondent No.2 on 22.06.1989. Thereafter, the user of the subject land was changed to non-agricultural residential by order dated 01.02.2005. Pursuant to the order dated 25.09.2005, mutation entries with respect to the subject land were also carried out in favour of respondent No.2. On 22.03.2006, respondent No.2 sold the subject property to respondent No.1 in terms of a registered sale deed. 4. It was noted that the children of Muniyappa – the original grantee – had sought to challenge the sale of the subject property in favour of respondent No.2 and had instituted a suit in a revision application before the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-Zone, Bengaluru. The said application was disposed of by an order dated 26.05.2008. It is material to note that the said order expressly records that Muniyappa had sold the subject property to respondent No.2 after obtaining permission for sale of the aforesaid property in terms of an order dated 15.02.1989 issued by the Deputy Commissioner. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32590-DB WA No. 1936 of 2024 5. Clearly in view of the same, the order dated 19.12.2018 passed under Section 136(3) of the Act is not sustainable. The said order is premised on the basis that the subject land had been sold contrary to the terms of the grant and, therefore, the grant was liable to be revoked. 6. Taking note of the aforesaid discussions, we find no infirmity with the impugned order. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43