- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52155-DB WA No. 1968 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1968 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR INAM ABOLITION, HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN - 573 201 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BEHIND KANDHAYA BAHAVAN K.G.ROAD BANGALORE - 560 009 4. THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS BANGALORE URBAN DIVISION BANGALORE - 560 003 5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN SUB-DIVISION KANDHAYA BAHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009 Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52155-DB WA No. 1968 of 2025 6. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560 009 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI K. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI KIRAN V. RON, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL & SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., ADDL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI M.B. NEMANNA GOWDA @ M.B. MANMATHA S/O M.R. BYRE GOWDA S AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT MAREBYLU, G. AGRAHARA VILLAGE GONIBEEDU POST, MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 132 …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30/08/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.25067/2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) AND ETC. 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. POONACHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52155-DB WA No. 1968 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application—I.A.No.1/2025, the same is allowed. The delay of 64 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 2. The State of Karnataka has filed the present Intra-Court appeal impugning an order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25067/2025(KLR-RR/SUR). 3. The respondent had filed the said writ petition praying that direction be issued to enter his name in the Record of Rights [RTC's] in terms of the order dated 20.12.1973 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Hassan Division, Hassan in case No.A7.OR.25/1973-74. The writ petitioner also claimed for grant of alternate lands or compensation for wrongfully encroaching on granted land without following due process of law. 4. The writ petitioner's case is on the premise that he has been granted occupancy rights in respect of the subject lands. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Single Judge directed the concerned authorities to enter the name of the petitioner in the Record of Rights after verification and after confirming that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52155-DB WA No. 1968 of 2025 occupancy rights has been granted in favour of the writ petitioner. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the impugned order are set out below: 4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed off with a direction to the 6th respondent-Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk to verify from the records as to whether the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records pursuant to the confirmation of occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner. Even otherwise, if it is a fact that occupancy rights has been conferred in favour of the petitioner in the said order at annexure-A, dated 20.12.1973, then it is the bounden and duty of the revenue authorities to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. 5. The Tahasildar shall act accordingly and pass necessary orders to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. The learned Advocate General contends that mandamus has been issued to the Tahsildar to enter the name of the writ petitioner in the revenue records. However the writ petitioner's claim that he has been granted with occupancy rights is disputed and some of the documents on the basis of which the said claim is premised, are fake. He submits that no opportunity was granted to the State to file its statement of objection and the writ petition is disposed of in the first stage itself. He also submits that the direction issued in paragraph 5 of the impugned order is unambiguous and the Tahsildar is required to follow the same. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52155-DB WA No. 1968 of 2025 6. We find that the directions issued in paragraph 5 of the impugned order as set out above, are subject to the directions issued in paragraph 4. 7. The learned Single Judge has not decided any of the rights of the writ petitioner and accordingly directed the authorities to verify from the records whether the name of the writ petitioner was entered in the records and whether he had been granted occupancy rights. 8. The learned Single Judge additionally directed that in fact, if the occupancy right had been conferred on the petitioner in terms of the order dated 20.12.1973 (annexed as annexure-A to the Writ Petition) which was relied upon by the petitioner, then it would be the duty of the Revenue Authority to enter the name of the writ petitioner in the revenue records. 9. It is not disputed that if the occupancy rights have been granted in favour of the writ petitioner, the name would be entered in the revenue records. However, the dispute here appears as to whether, in fact, the occupancy rights were granted to the writ petitioner. This dispute is not addressed by the learned Single Judge and it is left to the concerned authorities to examine the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52155-DB WA No. 1968 of 2025 revenue records and verify whether infact occupancy rights have been granted in terms of the order dated 20.12.1973. Clearly if the occupancy rights has been granted, the Tahsildar will have to take necessary steps to include the name of the grantee in the land records, subject to any other rival claims. In view of the above, the appellant cannot be aggrieved by the said order. We accordingly dispose of the present appeal with the aforesaid clarification. 10. The pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KMV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25