- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6901 WP No. 20098 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.20098 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI.BIJAVARA KRISHNAPPA SRINIVASA S/O LATE B C KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.5/35 'SRI.KRISHNA NILAYA' 1ST MAIN ROAD RAJARAJESHWARI BLOCK N B K LAYOUT, HEBBAL BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 024 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANTH U. T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION 2ND FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVAN K.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560009 2. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK DIESEL LOCO SHED ROAD DHURAVANI NAGAR K R PURAM BENGALURU-560036 Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6901 WP No. 20098 of 2023 3. SRI.RAMANJINAPPA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560049 4. SRI.B.M.KUMAR S/O SRI.MUNIHANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.9 BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560049 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MANJUNATH K, HCGP FOR R.1 AND 2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN RA (BE)NO.132/2022 ON THE FILE OF R1 AND QUASH ORDER DATED 22.12.2022 AND ORDER DATED 05.07.2023 PASSED BY THE R1 IN RA (BE) NO.132/2022 ANNEXURE-K AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE MEMO FOR WITHDRAWAL DATED 05.07.2023 ANNEXURE-J FILED IN RA(BE) NO.132/2022, ON THE FILE OF R1 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6901 WP No. 20098 of 2023 ORAL ORDER The impugned orders passed by respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner are clearly one without jurisdiction and the same are liable to be quashed by this Court. 2. The petitioner herein feeling aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2 - Special Tahasildar preferred an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act in R.A.(BE)No.132/2022. The petitioner is asserting title based on the registered sale deed dated 07.09.2021. Respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner referring to the reported judgment rendered by this Court proceeded to allow the appeal filed by the petitioner, which is evidenced at Annexure-E and set-aside the impugned mutation certified by respondent No.2 - Special Tahasildar and consequently, directed respondent No.2 - Special Tahasildar to mutate the petitioner's name in terms of the registered sale deed dated 07.09.2021. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6901 WP No. 20098 of 2023 3. The case on hand depicts the very sorry state of affairs. The learned counsel, who had appeared for respondent Nos.3 and 4, strangely files an application under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for short 'KLR Act') to recall the order, which is evidenced at Annexure-G. Later, both memos for advancement and withdrawal are filed by the same lawyer, who had appeared for respondent No.3 and 4, pretending to be the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The said memos are dated 05.07.2023, which are evidenced at Annexures-H and J. Acting on the memo for withdrawal of the appeal, which is evidenced at Annexure-J, respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner shockingly has entertained fraudulent memos and an order is passed under Section 136(2) of the KLR Act, which is now challenged in the present writ petition. 4. The action of respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner is clearly one without jurisdiction and contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the reported - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6901 WP No. 20098 of 2023 judgment rendered in the case of SRI.N.CHANDRA REDDY V. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS1. This Court, while examining the order of the Assistant Commissioner, has held that under Section 136(2) of the KLR Act once an order is passed by the Assistant Commissioner, he has no power to review his own order, which is passed on merits. 5. In the light of the law laid down by this Court, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside on two counts. Firstly, respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to recall the order under Section 136(2) of the KLR Act. The second crucial aspect, which needs attention at the hands of this Court is that respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner has acted upon the frivolous application filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4. An appeal under Section 136(2) of the KLR Act, which is decided on merits, cannot be withdrawn by filing a memo for 1 ILR 2016 KAR 3275 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6901 WP No. 20098 of 2023 withdrawal by the contesting respondents, who had suffered at the hands of respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner. The remedy, if any, was to prefer a revision against the order passed by respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner. However, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have resorted to seek withdrawal by misrepresentation. Even on this count, the order under challenge is not sustainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned orders dated 22.12.2022 and 05.07.2023 passed by respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner in R.A.(BE).No.132/2022 as per Annexure-K are hereby quashed and set-aside. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6901 WP No. 20098 of 2023 (iii) The copy of this order shall be sent to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner through Advocate General Office, High Court of Karnataka to reprimand respondent No.1 - Assistant Commissioner from passing any such similar orders in future. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5