- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26976 WP No. 332 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 332 OF 2021 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: D.V.PAVAMANA, S/O LATE D. VAMANAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF NO.36(20/1), 5TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 18. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. HARISH KUMAR M S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26976 WP No. 332 of 2021 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 4. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 5. THE TAHASILDAR, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 064. 6. CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER, NIRVACHANA NILAYA, MAHARANI'S COLLEGE CIRCLE, SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R5; SRI.DODWAD SHARASCHANDRA RAMESH, ADV., FOR R6) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.5.2020 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDE ANNEXURE - J CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.6.2020 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE – K AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26976 WP No. 332 of 2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition the petitioner is assailing the communication letter dated 14.05.2020 passed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka (respondent no.2) in No.KumE69L.G.B 2019 (Annexure-J) consequently, sought to set aside the order dated 30.06.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District (respondent no.3) in proceedings no.LND(Y)CR 112/2019-20 (Annexure-K) inter alia sought for a direction to respondent no.3 to dispose of the case No.53/1958-59, expeditiously. 2. Heard Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Harish Kumar M.S., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manjunath K, learned HCGP for respondent-State and Sri Dodwad Sharaschandra Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent no.6. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26976 WP No. 332 of 2021 3. Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Harish Kumar M.S., learned counsel for the petitioner, invited the attention of the Court to Annexure-A, in a proceedings No.53/1958-59, wherein the Special Tahsildar for Inams Abolition, Bengaluru, vide order dated 16.09.1964, rejected the claim made by one Jayalakshmamma w/o. late P. Dhruva Rao and thereafter, the said Jayalakshmamma preferred Appeal No.101/71(I.A.B) before the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru and the said Tribunal vide order dated 22.03.1971 (Annexure-C), allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to respondent no.4 to reconsider the issue afresh. In that view of the matter, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that, respondent no.4, without considering the order of remand made by the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru had taken a decision in the matter and accordingly, sought for setting aside the order passed by the respondent no.4 allotting the schedule land in favour of respondent no.6 for construction of Warehouse and therefore, sought for interference by this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26976 WP No. 332 of 2021 4. Per contra, Sri Manjunath K, learned HCGP for respondent-State referring to the averments made in the statement of objections, particularly emphasizing Annexure-R8, wherein respondent no.3 has rejected the claim made by the said Jayalakshmamma and therefore, contended that, as the matter has been concluded by the respondent-authorities, no interference is called for in this writ petition. He also invited the attention of the Court to Annexures-R1 and R2, wherein the Revenue Authorities have taken further action in the matter and therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Sri Dodwad Sharaschandra Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent no.6, Beneficiary of the land, sought to justify the allotment of land made by the respondent- authorities and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, what emerges is that, the petitioner claims to be the legal heir of the deceased Jayalakshmamma, who had filed an application seeking re-grant of the land in Case No.53/1958-59 before the Special Tahsildar for Inams Abolition, Bengaluru and the said application came to be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26976 WP No. 332 of 2021 rejected vide order dated 30.09.1964 (Annexure-A). Feeling aggrieved, the said Jayalakshmamma preferred an Appeal No.101/71(I.A.B) before the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru and the Tribunal vide order dated 22.03.1971 (Annexure-C), allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to respondent no.4 to reconsider the issue afresh. It is relevant to extract paragraph no.3 at Annexure-C, which reads as under : "3. It is evident from the record that the contentions advance on behalf of the appellant are in-controvertible. The records show that the Spl Deputy Commissioner has not conducted a formal enquiry nor has he examined the nature and history of the lands in question as required by Sec-10 of the Mysore (personal & miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act 1954. The record that does not include any evidence to show that the lands in question are either tank bed or garden thopu (except the I.C.extent). Therefore it would appear that the learned Spl.Dy.Commissioner has passed the impugned order solely relying on the report of the Spl.Tahsildar for Inam Abolition, Bangalore. That being so, clearly the impugned order is not sustainable. It is well-settle that the nature of the enquiry under Sec-10 of the Act which has to be made by the Tahsildar and later on the Deputy Commissioner after receiving the Tahsildar report should fully confirms to the requirements of a formal enquiry as - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26976 WP No. 332 of 2021 provided in the Land Revenue Code. This means that the parties should be given the fullest opportunity to produce the oral and documentary evidence on which they rely as also to cross-examine the witness giving evidence against them and there should be opportunity for confornation of contending parties. No decision should be taken on the basis of the report of the Tahsildar placed on record behind the back of the affected party." 7. From the perusal of the portion of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is noticed that, as the Competent Appellate Tribunal has remitted the matter to the Special Deputy Commissioner for disposal of the matter in accordance with law, I find force in the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that, even after remitting of the matter by the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, no further action has been taken by the Special Deputy Commissioner (respondent no.4). Though the learned HCGP contended, by referring to Annexure-R1 and particularly Annexure-R8 that, the claim of Jayalakshmamma has been rejected, however, considering the date shown in Annexure-R8 is, "16.07.1959" which is much prior to the order passed by the Mysore Revenue - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26976 WP No. 332 of 2021 Appellate Tribunal i.e., on 22.03.1971, and therefore, I am of the view that the impugned orders require to be quashed. 8. In that view of the matter, the following ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed; ii) The communication letter dated 14.05.2020 passed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka (respondent no.2) in No.KumE69L.G.B 2019 (Annexure-J) and consequently, order dated 30.06.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District (respondent no.3) in proceedings no.LND(Y) CR 112/2019-20 (Annexure-K) and all proceedings thereunder, are hereby set aside; iii) A writ of mandamus is hereby issued to respondent no.4 to re-consider the issue in Case No.53/1958-59 and take decision in the matter in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made by the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 22.03.1971, expeditiously. iv) It is made clear that, till the conclusion of the proceedings before respondent no.4, in terms of the order - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26976 WP No. 332 of 2021 passed supra, status-quo shall be maintained by the parties, in respect of the petition schedule property. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE rs List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43