- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26213 WP No. 8361 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.8361 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MR. GOVINDRAJU M SON OF LATE CHINNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.318, 3RD CROSS, CHENNAKESHAVA NAGARA, SINGASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560100. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N.S. SRIRAJ GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560027. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26213 WP No. 8361 of 2025 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH KANDAYA BHAVAN, KG ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009 KARNATAKA. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDHAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560036 KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH BABURAO, AGA ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE IN CASE NO.R.A./01/2025 DATED 04.02.2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 CALLING UPON THE PETITIONER TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND BE PRESENT BEFORE THEIR OFFICES, FOR FURTHER ENQUIRY, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO SECTION 67(3), OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT 1964. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the notice dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure-J) issued by respondent No.2, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26213 WP No. 8361 of 2025 calling upon the petitioner to produce the documents in respect of the subject land. 2. Heard Sri. N.S. Sriraj Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Siddharth Baburao, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents and Sri. Narendra S., learned counsel for the impleading applicant in I.A.3/2025. 3. Sri. N.S. Sriraj Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 06.05.2024 (Annexure-H) passed by respondent No.3 and submitted that in view of the provision under Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'), the respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to issue notice to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, Sri. Narendra S., learned counsel for the impleading applicant in I.A.3/2025, submitted that the jurisdiction has been entrusted to the Regional Commissioner under Section 56 of the Act and therefore, sought to justify the impugned notice at Annexure-J. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26213 WP No. 8361 of 2025 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that since respondent No.2 has entertained the appeal under Section 56 of the Act and therefore, the proceedings initiated under Section 67(2) of the Act in RRT (2) (E) CR / 16 / 2023- 24, as per Annexure-H has to be examined by respondent No.2 and accordingly, sought to justify the impugned order. 6. In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, the core question to be answered in this writ petition is as to 'whether the respondent No.2 is having jurisdiction under Section 56 of the Act to issue the notice as per Annexure-J to the writ petition?'. In this regard, on careful examination of the order dated 06.05.2024 (Annexure-H) issued by respondent No.3 makes it clear that the respondent No.3 has invoked the provision under Section 136(3) and Section 67(2) of the Act. In that view of the matter, it is relevant to extract Section 67(2) and (3) of the Act which reads as under: " S.67 (2) Where any property or any right in or over any property is claimed by or on behalf of the State Government or by any person as against the State Government, it shall be lawful for the Deputy - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26213 WP No. 8361 of 2025 Commissioner or a Survey Officer not lower in rank than a Deputy Commissioner, after formal inquiry to pass an order deciding the claim. S.67 (3) Any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-section (2) or in appeal or revision therefrom may institute a civil suit contesting the order within a period of one year from the date of such order and the final decision in the civil suit shall be binding on the parties." 7. On careful examination of the language employed under Section 67(3) as above, as on the date of the order passed by respondent No.3 at Annexure-H, makes it clear that the order passed by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner is final and respondent No.3 has no power to review the same. The aggrieved party under the provision of Section 67(2) of the Act has to institute a civil suit contesting the said order. 8. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that respondent No.2 herein has no jurisdiction under Section 56 of the Act to issue the notice and therefore, the only remedy available for the aggrieved party pursuant to the order passed under Section 67(2) of the Act, prior to the amendment made - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26213 WP No. 8361 of 2025 thereunder, is to institute a suit before the competent Court. In that view of the matter, the impugned notice at Annexure-J is liable to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned notice at Annexure-J and all further proceedings thereof are hereby quashed. (iii) In view of the conclusion arrived at to the effect that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition under Section 56 of the Act, the impleading application is accordingly, disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30