Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 70610 (KAR)

SRI SYED AMAN v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/38522/2011 · 2025-07-23

E S Indiresh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.38522 OF 2011 (KLR-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.38527 OF 2011 (KLR-RR/SUR) IN WP No. 38522/2011 BETWEEN: 1. 1(a). 1(b). 1(c). SRI SYED AMAN S/O LATE SYED KHASIM SAB, SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. MUBEENA BANU W/O LATE SYED AMAN AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS SYED MOHAMMED ZAIN S/O LATE SYED AMAN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS PETITIONERS NO.1(a) AND 1(b) ARE R/AT NO.23/A ANNAYAPPA 1ST BLOCK 1ST CROSS, J.C. NAGAR BENSON TOWN BENGALURU - 560 046. SYED MOHAMMED SALAHUDDIN S/O LATE SYED AMAN AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO.23, KEB ROAD BENSON TOWN POST Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 ANNAYAPPA BLOCK BENGALURU - 560 046. 2. SRI. SYED ARIF S/O LATE JABBAR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 3. SRI. SYED ASIF S/O LATE JABBAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 4. SRI. SYED ABID S/O LATE JABBAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 5. SMT. MUNEERA BEGUM W/O LATE JABBAR AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS ALL PETITIONERS ARE R/AT GANGENAHALLI VILLAGE TAVAREKERE HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 562 130. ....PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUBRAHMANYA KAUSHIK R.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT K G ROAD BANGALORE-560009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION K G ROAD BANGALORE-560009. 4. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK K G ROAD BANGALORE-560009. 5. MUNIYAPPA S/O CHIKKAMUNISWAMAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 6. KARIYAPPA S/O JANGAMA BHOVI AGED : MAJOR. 7 . KOLUKAR KARIYAPPA S/O VENKATARAM BHOVI AGED : MAJOR. 8 . NAGARAJA S/O VEERAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 9 . VENKATAGIRIYAPPA S/O VENKATABHOVI AGED : MAJOR. 10 . JANGAMAIAH S/O BALAGURUVA BHOVI AGED : MAJOR. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 11 . K. VENKATESHA S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 12 . SRINIVASA S/O GANGAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 13 . CHENNAMMA W/O GOPALA AGED : MAJOR. 14 . PEDDAGAIAH S/O DODDELA BHOVI AGED : MAJOR. 15 . VENKATAMMA W/O J. KARIYAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 16 . MARAKKA W/O CHIKKA VENKATAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 17 . HANUMAIAH S/O GURUVA BHOVI AGED : MAJOR. 18 . YELLAMMA W/O G CHIKKAKARIYAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 19 . ERAMMA W/O VENKATESHA AGED : MAJOR. 20 . NAGARAJA S/O CHOWDAPPA - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 AGED : MAJOR. 21 . NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O DODDMUNISWAMAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 22 . VOMBAMMA W/O MARAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 23 . SANJEEVAIAH S/O MADAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 24 . MARE GOWDA S/O MUNI HANUMAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 25 . KEMPAIAH S/O MUNIYAAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 26 . KADARANARASAMMA W/O PUNJANARASAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 27 . HANUMA NARASAIAH S/O LATE NARASIKANTHAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 28 . AMIR JHAN S/O LATE BANSAH SAB AGED : MAJOR. 29 . SHIVAJI RAO S/O CHANDU RAO AGED : MAJOR. 30 . LAKSHMAMMA - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 W/O MARE GOWDA AGED : MAJOR. 31 . CHOTIYAMMA W/O MEHBOOB AGED : MAJOR. 32 . KATHUMBI W/O LATE BASHA SAB AGED : MAJOR. 33 . ANJINAPPA S/O LATE PAPAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 34 . MUNIRAJU S/O MUDDAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 35 . MUNINARASAMMA W/O JINRANAGAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 36 . MUNIMARAIAH S/O DODDA HANUMAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 37 . NARASAIAH S/O NARASIMHAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 38 . KADIRANARASAIAH S/O DODDA MUNISWAMAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 39 . BYRAPPA S/O LATE ERAPPA AGED : MAJOR. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 40 . CHIKKA CHENNAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED : MAJOR. 41 . CHOWDAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKANARASAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 42 . CHIKKANARASAIAH S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 43 . KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE NARASAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 44 . NAGAPPA W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 45 . MALLAIAH S/O LATE PUTTAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 46 . NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O K SIDDAMMA AGED : MAJOR. 47 . MUTTURAYAPPA S/O LATE KARIPODDAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 48 . MUDDURANGAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 49 . PAPANNA W/O LATE CHIKKA VEERANNA AGED : MAJOR. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 50 . RANGAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKA HONNAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 51 . MUTTURAYAPPA S/O LATE GUNDAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 52 . GANAGAHANUMAIAH S/O HOMBAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 53 . MARIYAAPPA S/O LATE GUNDAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 54 . BASAMMA W/O RAMGAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 55 . CHIKKANNA S/O RANGAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 56 . L. NARAYANA SWAMY S/O LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 57 . RAMAKRISHNAPPA S/O REVANNA AGED : MAJOR. 58 . LAKSHMI NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 59 . GANGALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED : MAJOR. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 60 . NARASIMHAIAH S/O CHENAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 61 . RAJANNA S/O NAGAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 62 . MARANARASAIAH S/O DODDAMUNISWAMAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 63 . NAGARAJU S/O PUTTAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 64 . REVANNA S/O SIDDAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 65 . BAKSHI S/O LATE BASHA SAB AGED : MAJOR. 66 . N. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O NARASIMHAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 67 . CHOWDAPPA S/O NARASIMHAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 68 . KEMPARAMAIAH S/O BAIRALINGAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 69 . KEMPAIAH S/O DODDAHANUMANTHAIAH AGED : MAJOR. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 70 . VENKATACHALAIAH S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 71 . MUNINARASAIAH S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 72 . LAKSHMAPPA S/O NAGAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 73 . MUNIRAJU S/O MUNIHANUMAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 74 . G R RENUKAPPA S/O REVANNA AGED : MAJOR. 75 . MUNIRAMA S/O DODDAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 76 . G N KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE NAGAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 77 . E YESURAJ S/O ERNOMIS AGED : MAJOR. 78 . SUBHADRA BAI W/O N RAJA AGED : MAJOR. 79 . MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED : MAJOR. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 80 . G H RAMAIAH S/O HANUMAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 81 . VENKATASWAMAIAH S/O LATE NAGAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 82 . CHENNAMMA WO LATE PUTTARAJU AGED : MAJOR. 83 . SHIVANNA S/O LATE CHENNAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 84 . P. THIMMAIAH S/O PATTAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 85 . HANUMAIAH S/O HANUMANTHAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 86 . VENKATARAMAIAH S/O KADRAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 87 . VENKATAPPA S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 88 . ERNAMIS S/O ARALAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 89 . MARAIAH S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED : MAJOR. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 90 . MUNIYAPPA S/O PUTTANARASAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 91 . MARAPPA S/O NARASIMHAIAH AGED : MAJOR. 92 . DODDAHONNAIAH S/O RANGAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 93 . SIDDAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAVEERANNA AGED : MAJOR. 94 . B. CHANDRAPPA S/O BASAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 95 . B.N. LAKKAPPA S/O NANJAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 96 . K.L. NARAYANA GOWDA S/O LAKKANNA AGED : MAJOR. 97 . MARAKKA W/O UMAPATHY AGED : MAJOR. 98 . KASTURI W/O RAJAPPA AGED : MAJOR. 99 . DEVARAJU S/O LATE GIRI AGED : MAJOR. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 100 . REVAIAH S/O LATE GURUVA BHOVI AGED : MAJOR. 101 . NAGARAJU S/O CHOWDAPPA AGED : MAJOR. RESPONDENT NOS. 5 TO 101 ARE R/O GANGENAHALLI VILLAGE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 562 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. D.L. SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR R16, R18, R24, R28, R30, R39, R42, R44-R48, R50, R51, R53, R55, R56, R58, R62, R63, R69, R72, R73, R75, R83, R84, R86, R87, R92, R96 & R97; V/O DATED 09.07.2025 NOTICE TO R5 TO R7, R9 TO R11, R13, R14, R17, R21 TO R23, R25, R26, R31, R35, R36, R38, R40, R41, R43, R49, R52, R57, R59, R60, R67, R71, R74, R76 TO R78, R80, R82, R85, R88, R90, R93, R95, R99 IS DISPENSED WITH; V/O DATED 15.03.2016 THIS PETITION IS ABATED AGAINST R32; R8, R12, R15, R19, R20, R27, R29, R33, R34, R37, R43, R54, R61, R64, R65, R66, R68, R70, R81, R89, R91, R94, R101 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS IN R.P.NO.6/2000-01 DATED - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 25.08.2003 AT ANNEXURE-U PASSED BY THE SECONS RESPONDENT AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN R.A.74/92-93 DATED 28.08.1997 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-S. IN WP NO. 38527/2011 BETWEEN: 1. 1(a). 1(b). 1(c). SRI. SYED AMAN S/O LATE SYED KHASIM SAB, SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. MUBEENA BANU W/O LATE SYED AMAN AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS SYED MOHAMMED ZAIN S/O LATE SYED AMAN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS PETITIONERS NO.1(a) AND 1(b) ARE R/AT NO.23/A ANNAYAPPA 1ST BLOCK 1ST CROSS, J.C. NAGAR BENSON TOWN BENGALURU - 560 046. SYED MOHAMMED SALAHUDDIN S/O LATE SYED AMAN AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO.23, KEB ROAD BENSON TOWN POST ANNAYAPPA BLOCK BENGALURU - 560 046. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 2. SRI. SYED ARIF S/O LATE JABBAR, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 3. SRI. SYED ASIF S/O LATE JABBAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 4. SRI. SYED ABID S/O LATE JABBAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 5. MUNEERA BEGUM W/O LATE JABBAR, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 5 ARE R/AT GANGEHALLI VILLAGE TAVAREKERE HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-562130. PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUBRAHMANYA KAUSHIK R.S., ADVOCATE) AND 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT K G ROAD BANGALORE-560009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION K G ROAD BANGALORE-560009. 4. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK K G ROAD BANGALORE-560009. ….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN RRT(2).CR.130/1995-96 DATED 12.01.2004 AT ANNEXURE-W PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 CAV ORDER In Writ Petition No.38522 of 2011, petitioners are assailing the order dated 25.08.2003 (Annexure-U) passed in RP No.6 of 2000-01 by the respondent No.2, consequently, sought for setting aside the order dated 28.08.1997 (Annexure-S) passed in RA No.74 of 1992-93 by respondent No.3. 2. In Writ Petition No.38527 of 2011, petitioners are assailing the order dated 12.01.2004 (Annexure-W) passed in RRT.(2) CR No.130/1995-96 by the respondent No.2. 3. The brief facts for adjudication of writ petitions as averred by the petitioners are that, land bearing Survey No.130 of Gangenahalli Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk (erstwhile Magadi Taluk) was a Jodi Inam Land. It is averred in the writ petition that, one Sri. R.G. Shamanna, S/o Gundurao, made an application seeking occupancy rights and as such, the then Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, rejected the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 claim made by the said applicant and thereafter, Appeal No.532, 533 and 534 of 1966 was filed before the Mysuru Revenue Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, by order dated 29.11.1966 (Annexure-B), allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition. It is also stated that the entry in Register No.VIII was effected in the name of R.G. Shamanna as per Annexure-A showing confermant of occupancy rights and Mutation Register in MR.9/68-69 and IL and RR at Sl.No.744 as per Annexures-C to E effected accordingly. Thereafter, the said R.G. Shamanna sold the entire extent of land in favour of D.V. Padmanabaiah through a registered Sale Deed and in turn the said D.V. Padmanabaiah sold in favour of Smt. Savitri Devi Memorial Trust. The revenue record is produced at Annexure-D and E. Subsequently, the petitioners have purchased the entire extent of land as per registered Sale Deeds dated 05.02.1981 and encumbrance certificate is produced at Annexure-F. Thereafter, the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 revenue records mutated in favour of the petitioners as per Annexures-N to R respectively. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondent Nos.5 to 101 (W.P.No.38522 of 2011) have no locus-standi and illegally claim to be in possession of the land in question and accordingly, these private respondents have filed RA No.74 of 92-93 before the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3, by order dated 28.08.1997 set-aside the mutation entries made in favour of the petitioners and same was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.27047 of 1997 and connected matters. This Court, by order dated 23.07.1999 directed the petitioners to approach the respondent No.2 under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1964'). Pursuant to same, RP No.6 of 2000-01 filed before the respondent No.2, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 25.08.2003. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners have preferred these writ petitions challenging the order dated 25.08.2003 in RP - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 No.6 of 2000-01 (Annexure-U) passed by the respondent No.2 and order dated 28.08.1997 in RA No.74 of 1992-93 (Annexure-S) and order in RRT(2) CR.130/1995-96 dated 12.01.2004 at Annexure-W passed by respondent No.2. 4. I have heard Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf learned counsel, Sri. Subramnya Kaushik R.S., for the petitioners in both the writ petitions; Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and Sri. D.L. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for private respondents in WP No.38522 of 2011. 5. Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the order of re-grant claimed by the petitioners, which came to be rejected by the competent Authority as per Annexure-A and thereafter, appeal preferred before the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru at Annexure-B, wherein, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 appeal and remanded matter to the respondent No.2 to conduct fresh enquiry. He also invited the attention of Court to Register No.VIII (Annexure-C), wherein, the land has been re-granted in favour of the petitioners and order has been made to effect revenue records in the name of the original grantee viz., R.G. Shamanna. Thereafter, the land in question was sold by the R.G. Shamanna and ultimately, the petitioners herein have purchased the entire extent of land as per registered Sale Deed dated 05.02.1981 which is forthcoming in Encumbrance Certificate produced at Annexure-F. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also referred to the order passed by the respondent No.3 in RA No.74 of 1992-93 for change of entry made against the petitioners herein and submitted that, since the land in question has been re-granted in favour of the original grantee under the provisions of Karnataka (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 and as such, submitted that the said order was rightly interfered with - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 by this Court in WP No.27047 of 1997 and connected matter produced at Annexure-T and finally the matter was remanded to the respondent No.2 for fresh consideration. Referring to the finding recorded by the respondent No.2 in the impugned order at Annexure-W, learned Senior Counsel, Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa submitted that the said respondent-authority had admitted with regard to conferring occupancy rights under Inams Abolition Act, 1954 and therefore, it is contended that, rejecting the claim made by the petitioners seeking entering the name of the petitioners in revenue records is incorrect and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 7. It is also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel by referring to Annexure-V, proceedings in RRT (2) CR 130/1995-96 and contended that, as the land has been re-granted in favour of the erstwhile grantee/R.G. Shamanna, and as such, it is contended that, no proceedings would have taken under the provisions of Section 136(2) or 136(3) of Act, 1964. It is also - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 submitted that the proceedings under Sections 136(2) and 136(3) of the Act, 1964 have been taken with an inordinate delay of more than three decades and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. To buttress his arguments, learned Senior Counsel, Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.2239 of 2018 dated 11.04.2022 and in Writ Appeal No.1115 of 2022 and connected matters dated 23.01.2024 and submitted that the impugned orders requires to be set-aside as the jurisdiction has to be exercised by the respondent- authorities within a reasonable period and Inam Abolition Act, 1954 is a complete code itself and the re-grant has been made in favour of the original grantee viz., R.G. Shamanna and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 8. Per contra, Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent– State defended the impugned orders passed by - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 respondent Nos.2 and 3. He submitted that the petitioners must establish their title to the land in question before seeking mutation, and in the absence of such proof, no interference is warranted in the impugned orders. He therefore sought dismissal of the writ petitions. 9. Sri. D. L. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for other private respondents in W.P. No. 38522 of 2011 invited the attention of the Court to the statement of objections and submitted that, some of the respondents are no more and the writ petition abates in respect of the same. He further contended that, since, most of the respondents were dead and joint claim has been made in respect of subject land as the private respondents have no interest in the schedule land and therefore, no separate claim be made against such respondents. He also submitted that, petitioners ought to have taken steps to bring legal representatives of deceased respondents and as such, it is argued that no individual claim can now be made against the deceased respondents without bringing - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 their legal representatives on record and accordingly, places on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunkara Lakshminarasamma (dead) by legal representatives vs. Sagi Subba Raju and others reported in 2019 11 SCC 787 and sought for dismissal of the petitions. 10. On merits of the case is concerned, it is submitted by Sri. D. L Suresh, learned counsel for the private respondents that, all the private respondents are the residents of Gangenahalli, Midachaiahana Palya and Lakshmipura, Tavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. It is submitted that land bearing Sy.No.130 of Gangenahalli to an extent of 200 acres is a jodi village and survey and phodi has not done in respect of subject land. He also submitted that, land is vested with the State Government and is a Gomal land and as such, private respondents are in possession of the schedule land and therefore, it is contended that, the subject land has not been re-granted in favour of vendors of the petitioners herein nor - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 boundaries has been fixed and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition. He further contended that, the petitioners herein have filed OS No.175 of 1991 before the Munsif Court at Magadi seeking relief of permanent injunction and in the said suit, the interim application filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed on 16.12.1993 (Annexure-R10 in statement of objections) and thereafter, MA No. 5 of 1994 was filed in the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Ramanagaram, which came to be dismissed on 02.12.1997 (Annexure-R11 in Statement of Objections) and thereafter, CRP No. 711 of 1998 was filed before this court which came to be dismissed on 24.09.2002 (Annexure-R12 in Statement of Objections) and finally, the original suit in OS No.175 of 1991 itself came to be dismissed on 25.01.2005 (Annexure-R13). Therefore, he contended that, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as claimed in the writ petitions. He also submitted that R. G. Shamanna has sold to an extent of 11 guntas in favour of certain persons mentioned in the paragraph 15 - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 and therefore, he contended that, the writ petitions require to be dismissed. 11. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful examination of the writ papers would indicate that, the petitioners claim to be the owners in possession of the land bearing Sy.No. 130 of Gangenahalli village, Bangalore South Taluk, originally classified as Jodi Inam land. The Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition in case No.39+30/ 1959-60 rejected the claim made by the erstwhile vendors of the petitioners-R.G. Shamanna, son of Gundurao by order dated 09.06.1967 (Annexure-A) and thereafter, the said order was challenged before the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos.532, 533, 534 of 1966 and the Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 29.11.1966 (Annexure-B), allowed the appeal and as such, set aside the order passed at Annexure-A, and remanded the matter to the Special Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the revenue authorities - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 entered the name of R.G. Shamanna-original grantee, in Register No.VIII and IL and RR and mutation register in MR No. 9/1968-69 as per Annexures-C to E respectively. Looking into the Encumbrance certificate at Annexure-F, makes it clear that, original grantee -R.G. Shamanna sold the entire extent of land in favour of one D.V. Padmanabaiah and in turn the said D.V. Padmanaiaha sold in favour of Smt. Savitri Devi Memorial Trust. The petitioners herein have purchased entire extent of land as per registered Sale Deed dated 05.02.1981 from Smt. Savitri Devi Memorial Trust. Thereafter, the mutation and RTC Extracts changed in favour of petitioners, as per MR. Nos.6 to 11/1980-81 (Annexures-N to R). In the backdrop of these aspects the petitioners are claiming right over the property as per the registered Sale Deed dated 05.02.1981 and accordingly, MR No.6 to 11/1981- 82 has been made by the respondent-authorities. It is the case of the private respondents that, land in question is a gomal land and that apart, they are in cultivation of the - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 land in question and as such, challenged the mutation made in favour of petitioners in RA No.74 of 1992-93. It is to be noted that, respondent No.3, while considering the appeal filed in RA No.74 of 1992-93 ought to have realised that, the private respondents herein have no locus standi in the said proceedings and they cannot challenge the mutation made in favour of the petitioners and accordingly, this Court would expects that respondent No.3 ought to have followed provisions contained under Sections 127 128, 130 and 135 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. It is also to be noted that, Full Bench of this court in W.P.No.6872 of 2013 between Jayamma vs. State of Karnataka and others held that, the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to test the title of the parties and revenue authorities have to relegate the parties to the civil court for adjudication of their civil rights. It is also to be noted that, the respondent No.3 in RA No. 74 of 1992-93 erroneously set aside the mutation made in favour of the petitioners herein, which would be - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 non-application of mind by the respondent No.3, however, the said aspect of the matter was not properly appreciated by the respondent No.2 in RP No.6 of 2000-01. The respondent No.2, without considering the fact that the originally land in question is a Inam land and the private respondents herein have not produced any documents to establish their right in respect of land in question, erroneously passed the impugned order dated 25.08.2003 (Annexure-W). That apart, yet another order in RRT (2) CR.130/1995-96 dated 12.01.2004 (Annexure-V) taken up suo moto proceedings against the petitioners and arrived at a conclusion that, entries made in the RTC extracts in favour of the petitioners herein has to be deleted. It is to be noted that, the respondent No.2 has not considered the fact that, the land in question is Inam land and cannot be classified as 'Government Karab' in the revenue records. Though Sri. D. L. Suresh learned counsel appearing for other private respondents referred to proceedings in OS No. 175 of 1991, and on careful examination of the - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 same would indicate that, the said suit was filed by the petitioners herein seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein, and curiously, in the said suit the private respondents have taken up a plea that, the land in question is a gomal land and vested with the State Government. In that view of the matter, the judgment referred to by the private respondents cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case as the claim made by the petitioners is against the private respondents in which, the respondents are claiming right over the property based on their possession as contended by the learned counsel for the private respondents without any acceptable documents, however, no grant has been made in favour of private respondents herein nor the private respondents prove their title in a manner known to law. It is also to be noted that, the claim made by the deceased private respondents is based on individual claim and same is nothing to do with the rights of the surviving private respondents as they were not the co-owners of the land in - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 question and therefore, the judgment referred to by Sri. D.L. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for private respondents, as petition abates, cannot be accepted. Therefore, I do not find merit in the submission made by Sri. D. L. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents. This court in WA No. 2239 of 2018 dated 11.04.2022 at paragraph 10 held as follows: "10. Admittedly, the order dated 22.6.1967 was passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 6 of the Inams Abolition Act. The aforementioned order was not challenged and has attained the finality. After a period of 47 years, the Deputy Commissioner exercised the power under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and set aside the revenue entries in favour of the respondents as well as his vendor. In effect, the Deputy Commissioner exercised the power under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act which is set at naught the order dated 22.06.1967 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore is under the Inams Abolition Act. It is Trite law that the order passed under one Act cannot be set - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 aside under the provisions of another Act. Besides that, the entries by initiating proceedings after an inordinate delay of 47 years, for which, no explanation has been offered." (Emphasis supplied) 12. It is also well established principle in law that, the respondent-authorities have no jurisdiction to set aside the orders without being heard the grantee of the land in question and the said aspect of the matter is concluded by this Court in W.P.No.41881 of 2019 dated 31.01.2024. This court in the case of B. K Narasinga Rao vs. State of Mysore, reported in 1966 (2) Mys.LJ. 152 held that, the Imams Abolition is complete code. It is also to be noted that, the exercise of power by the revenue authority has to be made within reasonable time. Though the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 does not prescribe the period for exercise of Suo Moto powers, then it must be exercised within a reasonable time (See. 1997 SCC 71). It is well established principle in law by the Hon'ble Supreme - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 Court in the case of Joint Collector vs. D Narasing Rao and others reported in (2015) 3 SCC 695 that, the delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is impermissible. In the backdrop of these aspects, taking into consideration the fact that the land in question is Inam land, I find force in the submission made by Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) Writ Petitions are allowed; ii) Order dated 25.08.2003 in RP No.6 of 2000-01 passed by respondent No.2-Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore (Annexure-U) and order dated 28.08.1997 in RA No.74 of 1992-93 passed by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner (Annexure-S) in WP No.38522 of 2011 and order dated 12.01.2004 in RRT(2).CR.130/1995-96 passed by respondent - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27998 WP No. 38522 of 2011 C/W WP No. 38527 of 2011 No.2-Special Deputy Commissioner (Annexure- W) in WP No. 38527 of 2011 are hereby set aside. iii) The revenue entries in MR No.6 of 11 of 1981- 82 dated 18.03.1981 passed by the Thasildar, Bangalore South Taluk changing the khata of the property bearing No.130 of Gangenahalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk, in favour of the petitioners herein is hereby confirmed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 82