- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30108 WP No. 8522 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 8522 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. MANJULA W/O D. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT AVATHI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU - 562164 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALROE RURAL DISTRICT DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANI HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU – 562110 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL, Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30108 WP No. 8522 of 2024 DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA - 561203. 4. THE TAHASILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562110 5. SMT. K T MUBARAK, W/O NOORULLA SHARIEF, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.94/C, 9TH CROSS, GOVINDAPURA MAIN ROAD, ARABIC COLLEGE POST BENGALURU – 560045 6. SRI AKRAM S/O NOORULLA SHARIEF, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO. 94/C, 9TH CROSS, GOVINDAPURA MAIN ROAD, ARABIC COLLEGE POST BENGALURU - 560045. 7. SRI HABEEB, S/O NOORULLA SHARIEF AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO. 94/C, 9TH CROSS, GOVINDAPURA MAIN ROAD, ARABIC COLLEGE POST BENGALURU - 560045. 8. SMT. NAZEEMUNNISA, W/O ABDUL AJEEJ, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT AVATHI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30108 WP No. 8522 of 2024 DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU - 562164. 9. SMT. ABDUL AJEEJ W/O ABDUL LATIEF SAB AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT AVATHI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU - 562164. 10. SRI P MANJUNATH, S/O LATE P MAHESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT CANARA BANK LAYOUT, KODIGE AVATHI VILLAGE, BENGALURU – 562164 11. SRI BASAVARAJU S/O GIDDACHARI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT AVATHI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU - 562164. 12. SRI GIDDACHARI, S/O KALACHARI, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT AVATHI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU - 562164. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SESHU V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4 V/O/D.28.03.2024, NOTICE TO R5 TO R12 IS D/W) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30108 WP No. 8522 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30/01/2024 PASSED BY THE R2, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, IN RP NO. 42/2011-12 UNDER SECTION 136(3) OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964, AS THE SAME IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE ORDER DATED 30/01/2024 PASSED BY THE R2, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, IN RP NO. 42/2011-12 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved of the suo motu action initiated at the hands of the Revenue Authorities, invoking Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased 2 acres of land out of 5 acres in Sy.No.74 of Avathi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, under a registered sale deed dated 10.12.1986. Originally the said 5 acres were granted in favour of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30108 WP No. 8522 of 2024 Sri.Abdul Lathief on 07.08.1950. The land granted to Sri.Abdul Lathief was identified as Block No.1 in Sy. No.74, and in a partition within the family of Sri.Abdul Lathief, 1 acre each fell to the share of his sons. The vendor of the petitioner, Sri.Ubedulla Sharief, purchased 1 acre from his father, Sri.Abdul Lathief, who had retained 1 acre of land in the partition, under a registered sale deed dated 20.01.1981. The petitioner purchased 2 acres of land from Sri.Ubedulla Sharief, under a registered sale deed dated 10.12.1986 and mutation was effected in terms of M.R.No.6/1986-87. When that being the position, proceedings were initiated at the instance of the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, invoking suo motu powers under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, more than six decades after the land was granted to Sri.Abdul Lathief. 3. The impugned order dated 30.01.2024 has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, holding that the original records do not evidence - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30108 WP No. 8522 of 2024 the fact that 5 acres of land were granted to Sri.Abdul Lathief and in fact, the land has been earmarked as ‘Gunduthopu’. 4. Learned Counsel submits that similar actions in large numbers were noticed by this Court in the case of Kunnappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in 2011 SCC Online Kar 4103 and this Court framed the issues to be considered as a) it is an order passed by the very authority in the third round of the exercise of power under Section 136(3) of the Act; (b) it is an order which is reasonably elaborate running to as many as 35 pages and though a good number of such orders have been found fault with by this Court and even quashed and many such orders have been virtually conceded by the State Government as they only deserve to be quashed, a spirited defence by the State Government in these petitions and the learned Special Government Advocate who appeared on behalf of the State and other statutory authorities to re-agitate the powers conferred on the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30108 WP No. 8522 of 2024 Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act, this Court held as follows: 19. This Court exercising judicial review does not sit in appeal over the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities whether under Section 136(2) or Section 136(3) of the Act, but what is reviewed is the manner of functioning of the authority and as to whether the power is really available for the action taken and as to whether power is exercised in a proper, bona fide manner. 20. The power under Section 136(3) of the Act is only for correcting the revenue entries based on the action taken by the Tahsildar either under Section 127 or under Section 129 of the Act. Neither the Tahsildar nor the Revisional Authority have any power to characterise the quality of the transaction based on which entries have been made. As to whether the order based on which some entry whether took place or not in the year 1972 as claimed by the writ petitioners and not a real entry but a false entry even as submitted by Sri Krishnamurthy, learned Special Government Advocate, as it is submitted that two sets of entries are found in the revenue records, is a question not merely confining to the correctness or otherwise of entry made by the Tahsildar under Section 127 or - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30108 WP No. 8522 of 2024 129 of the Act, but goes much beyond the scope of these two provisions. In fact, in the present order, the Deputy Commissioner based on whatever information that either he got from the Tahsildar or further verification of the information, has gone ahead further not only to annul the earlier order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner purporting to be under Section 5 of the Inams Act, but also has directed resumption of the land and for consequential directions being issued to the Tahsildar. 21. Such actions obviously go far beyond the scope of the power under Section 136(3) of the Act. While it is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to go into the question of correctness or otherwise of the grant order, whether it is forged, fabricated or petitioners have overreached the provisions of law and if any revenue authority has been manipulated and orders brought about, they are all matters which could have been independently examined and corrective action taken under the appropriate enabling provision of law. For the present purpose, it is suffice to observe that Section 136(3) of the Act does not enable such actions to be taken purporting to exercise revisional jurisdiction for correction of a mere revenue entry. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30108 WP No. 8522 of 2024 5. Similarly, another co-ordinate bench of this Court, in the case of Venkataraju and Another Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.33546/2015 dated 18.11.2022 held that two grounds have been canvassed by the petitioners for voiding of such orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, viz., (i) the suo motu revision cannot be initiated decades after the purported fraud & fabrication of documents was suspected, even in the absence of any statutory period of limitation u/s 136(3) of the 1964 Act; (ii) even otherwise, the purpose of RTS proceedings contemplated under Chapter XI of the 1964 Act, is alien to the purpose for which the present proceedings are initiated by the Deputy Commissioner. The Co-ordinate bench, considered such submissions in the light of an argument addressed on behalf of the State and its authorities that fraud vitiates everything and once prima facie fraud becomes demonstrable, enquiry under Section 136(3) is permissible. The Co-ordinate Bench held having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court in the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30108 WP No. 8522 of 2024 case of Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District Vs. D.Narsing Rao (2015) 3 SCC 695 that the judicial and quasi judicial process ordinarily abhors delay since the law relating to limitations are treated as statutes of peace & repose in the larger interest of the society. Therefore, ordinarily, delayed proceedings are frowned upon. It was held that the rigour of delay becomes even more militant when third party interests are created. It was held that fraud and fabrication, voids every act, is too broad a proposition and cannot be invoked ignoring the pragmatics of daily life in a society like ours. Such a norm evolved on foreign soil cannot just be brought as it is and mindlessly applied in such a situation regardless of the possible undesirable consequences thereof. 6. This Court too, in the case of Smt. Muniyamma Vs. State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.52666/2014 dated 01.02.2022 held as follows: “5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned AGA and on perusal of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30108 WP No. 8522 of 2024 petition papers, this Court finds that there is substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Suo motu proceedings are sought to be initiated at the hands of the Special Deputy Commissioner invoking the provisions of Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The power conferred under Section 136(3) of the Act on the Deputy Commissioner, either on his own motion or on application of a party is for examination of any records made under Section 127 and Section 129 and to pass such orders as he may deem fit. Section 127 empowers the revenue authorities to prepare and maintain record of rights in the prescribed manner. Section 129 empowers the prescribed officer to enter in the register of mutation every report made to him under sub- section (1) of Section 128 where rights are acquired and reported in respect of revenue lands. 6. What has been observed by this Court in all such cases is that the Deputy Commissioners concerned are invoking the suo motu power conferred under Section 136(3) to set aside an entry made in the record of rights. However, it is also found that under the guise of passing an order under Section 136(3) of the Act, directions are given by the Deputy Commissioners to evict the persons who are in possession of the lands. This is - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30108 WP No. 8522 of 2024 done on a wrong premise that the Deputy Commissioners are the custodians of the Government lands. The Deputy Commissioners and the revenue authorities are under a wrong impression that they are the custodians of the Government lands. The power conferred on the revenue authorities under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is to prepare and maintain the record of rights, survey settlement etc., It is the Government which is the affected party and therefore it is for the State Government to initiate action in a manner known to law, to recover the land in possession of an unauthorised occupant and 8 for setting right the record of rights. In such matters, what this Court finds is that no action is initiated at the hands of the State Government. On the contrary, the Deputy Commissioners/ Special Deputy Commissioners are invoking suo motu powers under Section 136(3) to recall the entries made in the revenue records and further by utilising the same powers, directions are issued to evict the persons from the lands in question. Primafacie, this kind of directions given by the Deputy Commissioners/Special Deputy Commissioners are contrary to the provisions of the Act and it would amount to colourable exercise of power. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30108 WP No. 8522 of 2024 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader and on perusing petition papers, this Court finds that in the present case, revenue entries have been maintained for more than six decades. The petitioner purchased 2 acres of land from Sri Ubedulla Sharief under a registered sale deed dated 10.12.1986 and mutation was effected in terms of M.R.No.6/1986-87. That being the position, it would be impermissible to allow the revenue authorities to invoke suo motu powers under Section 136(3) of the Act to set at naught the revenue entries which have been maintained for more than six decades. This Court has already held that such proceedings invoking suo motu powers under Section 136(3) would amount to colourable exercise of power. 8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure ‘A’ dated 30.01.2024 in Revision Petition No.42/2011-12 is hereby quashed and set aside. All - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30108 WP No. 8522 of 2024 proceedings initiated by the Revenue Authorities invoking the provisions of Section 136(2) and (3) of the Act, are hereby quashed and set aside. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE JT/- CT: JL