1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 18975 OF 2022 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1 . GIRIJA W/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDENT OF SY. NO. 161/5 B.M. KAVAL VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560040 ALSO RESIDING AT NO. 654 5TH CROSS, 17TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560034. ...PETITIONER (BY SMT. SRUTI C. CHAGANTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001. 2 . THE DEPARTMENT OF SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001. 3 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 2 BANGALORE CITY BANGALORE BANGALORE-560001. 4 . TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND EX-OFFICIO DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE CITY DISTRICT. 5 . THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. 6 . THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. 7 . THE TALUK SURVEYOR OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK RESPONDENT NOS. 4 TO 7 ALL HAVING OFFICE AT KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD BANGALORE-560001. 8 . B.P. SANATANA MURTHY S/O B.P. SRIKANTAIAH AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT C/O S.M. THIPPESWAMY NO. 714, 25TH MAIN ROAD 17TH CROSS, 6TH STAGE JP NAGARA, BANGALORE-560078. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R7; SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R8) 3 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2020 PASSED BY THE R4 IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.BHOO.JAM.NI./APPEAL 124/2017-18, PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-K, IN SO FAR AS IT DIRECTS EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER SECTION 140(2) OF THE KLRA TO CORRECT THE BOUNDARY MEASUREMENTS OF THE HISSA NUMBERS IN SY.NO.161 AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.07.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM C.A.V ORDER The petitioner asserts that she is the absolute owner of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.161/5 measuring 4 acres 32 guntas, situated at B.M. Kaval Village. The petitioner's claim is founded on the fact that her husband, late Siddappa, had purchased the said property from the erstwhile owner B.M. Narasimhamurthy under a registered sale deed dated 21.07.1972, which is produced at Annexure-A. Following the execution of the sale deed, the name of Siddappa was duly mutated in the revenue records, as evidenced by Annexure- A1. Upon his demise, the mutation entries were further updated to reflect the petitioner as the successor-in-interest, 4 which forms part of the documentary evidence placed on record. 2. The petitioner has elaborated upon the historical evolution of the land in question, asserting that the original Sy.No.161 measured a total of 123 acres 1 guntas as per the Akarband. She submits that around the year 1969-70, the said Sy.No.161 was subdivided into Sy.Nos.161/1, 161/2, 161/3, 161/4, and 161/5. Subsequently, in the year 1973, Sy.No.161/1 was further subdivided into Sy.Nos.161/1A, 161/1B, 161/1C, and 161/1D. The detailed extent of these subdivisions is elaborated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. 3. The controversy originated when respondent No.8 submitted two applications dated 23.04.2015 (Application Nos. 20020813995722 and 20020813995766), seeking phodi of lands which he claimed to own in Sy.Nos.138/1A and 161/1. These applications are annexed as Annexures-D and D1. Acting on these applications, respondent No.5 (Assistant Director of Land Records) sought approval to rebuild the L.R. 5 Pukka Book and the L.R. Tippani for the said survey numbers. However, respondent No.3 (Joint Director of Land Records) pointed out the existence of the L.R. Pukka Book and directed respondent No.5 to verify the availability of other necessary records, and in the event of their non-availability, to adhere to the instructions issued under Circular No. Tantrika/Adalitha/Suthole/17/08-09 dated 03.04.2009. 4. Respondent No.8 has asserted his right, title, and possession over approximately 20 acres of land. The petitioner has specifically contended that there exists a glaring inconsistency between the extent shown in the MR (Mutation Register) and the RTC (Record of Rights) concerning the lands held by respondent No.8. Her primary grievance is that instead of addressing this inconsistency through rectification of RTC records via the Bhoomi system in accordance with law, the authorities have embarked upon the exercise of rebuilding the L.R. Tippani for Sy.No.161. 6 5. In the course of reconstructing the L.R. Tippani, the authorities have claimed to have noticed two major discrepancies: (i) the measurement of boundaries as recorded in the hissa Tippani does not correspond with the total extent recorded in the Akarband, and (ii) an area of 14 acres 10 guntas which is recorded as ‘A’ kharab in the Akarband is, in fact, ‘B’ kharab and requires reclassification. Based on these findings, an order bearing No. Bhoo.Jam.Ni./Thiddupadi:229/2017-18 dated 11.10.2017 was passed by respondent No.3 granting permission to rebuild the Tippani and to carry out necessary corrections in kharab entries, which is produced at Annexure-J. 6. Acting on the said order, respondent No.5 sought cancellation of the existing hissa numbers in Sy.Nos.138 and 161. Respondent No.4 (Deputy Commissioner) took suo motu cognizance of the issue and registered an appeal in No.Bhoo.Jam.Ni./Appeal 124/2017-18. Notices were issued to all occupants of the aforementioned survey numbers, including the petitioner who was arrayed as respondent No.45, and 7 respondent No.8 who was arrayed as respondent No.32, as evidenced by Annexure-J2. The petitioner submitted detailed objections, placed on record as Annexure-J3. 7. After verifying the records, respondent No.4 dismissed the appeal, holding that the subdivision of Sy.No.161 into Sy.Nos.161/1 to 161/5 in 1969-70, and the further subdivision of Sy.No.161/1 into Sy.Nos.161/1A to 161/1D in 1973-74, had taken place based on multiple title transactions and had long since attained finality. It was concluded that there existed no justification to cancel the hissa numbers or revisit the decades-old subdivisions. It was further held that discrepancies in hissa boundary measurements do not afford sufficient ground to invalidate such subdivisions. 8. Despite this clear and conclusive finding by respondent No.4, the petitioner contends that respondent No.3 subsequently directed rectification of hissa boundaries under Section 140(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. 8 Believing that the issue had attained finality and that any further boundary corrections would be governed by Section 140(2) (which requires adjudication of disputes), the petitioner did not immediately challenge the said direction. 9. However, pursuant to the directions issued by respondent No.3, respondent No.4, despite having dismissed the appeal, communicated on 02.09.2020 to respondent No.6 instructing initiation of proceedings under Rule 36(1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 read with Section 140(2) of the Act, for rectification of hissa boundary discrepancies in Sy.Nos.138 and 161. This communication is part of Annexure-K. 10. In pursuance of the above, respondent No.6 (Tahsildar) issued notice to the petitioner, who filed detailed objections (also annexed with Annexure-K). Nonetheless, by a non-speaking order dated 28.07.2022, respondent No.6 directed rectification of boundaries and hissa measurements as per the sketch prepared by respondent No.7 on 9 08.07.2022. This order is impugned and is produced at Annexure-Q. 11. The petitioner challenges the impugned orders vide Annexures-K and Q on multiple grounds, foremost being the violation of principles of natural justice. It is asserted that once respondent No.4 had dismissed the appeal and settled the legality of the subdivisions, the subsequent directions issued for boundary rectification are without jurisdiction and amount to a virtual reopening of settled phodi proceedings. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has meticulously taken the Court through the contents of the order at Annexure-K, particularly emphasizing the findings on page 8, wherein it is categorically held that the subdivisions effected in 1969-70 were based on valid title documents and thus immune to rectification. The impugned sketch (Annexure-R32) prepared during the proceedings before respondent No.6 allegedly alters the eastern boundary of the petitioner’s land in 10 Sy.No.161/5, substantially reducing her extent and wrongfully extending the boundary of respondent No.8’s holding. 13. Counsel has also produced Google Maps to demonstrate that the lands of respondent No.8 are not contiguous with Sy.No.161/5 and are, in fact, located at the extreme eastern end, beyond several other properties. It is pointed out that the rectification directed by respondent No.6 goes far beyond the application filed by respondent No.8, which was restricted to Sy.No.161/1A. 14. Referring to the original title deed, it is submitted that the petitioner's husband had acquired Sy.No.161/5 after its lawful sub-division and that the sale deed of respondent No.8 pertains only to Sy.No.161/1A. The impugned proceedings have thus indirectly unsettled a decades-old and unchallenged sub-division. 15. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has submitted detailed tables (at paras 5, 6, and 8), demonstrating how the revenue records evolved and the discrepancies in the extent 11 claimed by respondent No.8 across mutation records, RTCs, and sale deeds. It is pointed out that by 1983-84, the only surviving survey numbers were the sub-divided ones, and no land was recorded as Sy.No.161 or 161/1 in official records, undermining the legality of the rectification exercise. 16. Notably, respondent No.8’s counsel, while reiterating the stand in the objections, has fairly conceded that respondent No.8 lays no claim over Sy.Nos.161/2 to 161/5, nor over Sy.Nos.161/1B, 161/1C, and 161/1D. His interest is confined exclusively to Sy.No.161/1A. In light of the procedural flaws and violation of natural justice alleged, he submits that he would have no objection if the matter is remanded to respondent No.6 for fresh consideration. 17. The learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.8 further argues that the sketch prepared by the survey authorities rightly captures the ground reality and corrects the misclassification of 'B' kharab lands. However, he submits that if the Court finds that the impugned order (Annexure-Q) 12 suffers from procedural irregularity or fails to adhere to the principles of natural justice, respondent No.8 would not oppose remanding the matter for reconsideration. 18. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 19. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the voluminous records produced by both the parties. The operative portion of the order passed by the respondent No.4 would have a direct bearing, apart from the merits of the case. This Court deems it fit to extract the relevant portion of the order as well as the operative portion for ready reference which reads as under: "ಭೂಾಖೆಗಳ ಸಾಯಕ ೇಶಕರು ಪಾವೆಂೆ ಸ ದ ಾಖೆಗಳ" ಾಗೂ ಪ#$ಾಗಳ" ಾಜರುಪ& ದ ಾಖೆಗಳಂ'ೆ ಪಕರಣವನು* ಸಮಗ$ಾ, ಪ-.ೕಸಾ,, ಈ 0ೆಳಕಂಡ ಅಂಶಗಳನು* ಗಮಸಾ,ೆ. 1) ಸ.ನಂ. 138 ರ -ೕ0ಾ3ಆ0ಾರಬಂನಂ'ೆ ಐ7 272ಎಕ9ೆ-14ಗುಂ:ೆ, ಖ9ಾಬು 47ಎಕ9ೆ-28ಗುಂ:ೆ, ;ಾ< 224ಎಕ9ೆ-26 ಗುಂ:ೆ = ೕಣ ಇದು?, ಸ.ನಂ.138/1 -ಂದ 16 ರವ9ೆೆ ಮತು ಸ.ನಂ. 161 ರ -ೕ0ಾ3 ಆ0ಾರಬಂನಂ'ೆ ಐ7 123ಎಕ9ೆ-01ಗುಂ:ೆ, ಖ9ಾಬು 14ಎಕ9ೆ-25ಗುಂ:ೆ, ;ಾ< 108ಎಕ9ೆ-16 ಗುಂ:ೆ = ೕಣ=ದು? ಸ.ನಂ. 161/1 -ಂದ 161/5 ರವ9ೆೆ 1969-70 ೇ ಾನ, ನಂತರ 1974 ೇ ಾನ ಸ.ನಂ. 138/1 gÀ°è 138/1J, 1©, 1¹ JAzÀÄ, 1973 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è 13 ¸À.£ÀA. 161/1 gÀ°è 161/1J, 1©, 1¹, JAzÀÄ, £ÀAvÀgÀ 1984£Éà ¸Á°£À°è ¸À.£ÀA.138/11gÀ°è ¸À.£ÀA.138/11J ¸À.£ÀA.138/11J, 11©, 11¹ JAzÀÄ »¸Áì Aೕ&ಗBಾ,ರುತೆ. 2) ಪ.*ತ Aೕ&ಯು ಕಮ$ಾ, ಸುCಾರು 50 ವಷ, 46ವಷ ಮತು 36 ವಷಗಳ" ಕBೆದ ತರು$ಾಯ ಾಖ 0ೊಂಡ ಸEಯಂ Fೇ-ತ GೕಲIನ= ಇಾ,ರುತೆ. 3) ಪ.*ತ Aೕ& ಾಖೆಗಳನ*ನುಸ- Jೕ ವK$ಾಟುಗBಾ, ಹಕುN ಾಖೆಗಳ ಬದಾವOೆPಾ,ರುವQದನು* ಪ#$ಾಗಳ" ಸ ದ ಾಖೆಗಳಂ'ೆ ಗಮಸಾ,ರುತೆ. 4) GೕಲNಂಡ KಾS ದುರ ಯಂ'ೆ ಾಗೂ ಾ #ದು?ಪ& TಪUVಯಂ'ೆ ;ಾಂzÀÄCಾಪQಗಳ ವW'ಾWಸ$ಾ,ರುವQಾ, 50 ವಷಗಳ Kಂನ Aೕ& ದುರ ಯನು* ರದು?ಪ&ಸಲು 0ೋ-ದು?, ಸದ- ವW'ಾWಸವನು* ಕಾಟಕ ಭೂಕಂಾಯ ಯCಾವX 1966 ರ ಯಮ 36(1)ರ& ಪ-ಾರ ಕಂಡು0ೊಳYಬಹುಾ,ರುವQದ-ಂದ ಸದ- Aೕ& Cಾಡುವ PಾವQೇ ನೂWನW'ೆ ಉಂ:ಾ,ೆ ಎಂದು ಕಂಡು ಬರುವQಲ. 5) ಕಾಟಕ ಭೂಕಂಾಯ ಯCಾವX 1966 ರ ಯಮ 72 ರ ಪ0ಾರ ಹಕುN ಾಖೆಗಳ ನಮೂಾದ = ೕಣದಂ'ೆ Aೕ& Cಾಡುವ ಜ$ಾ;ಾ?- Cಾತ ಭೂCಾಪನ ಇಾ[ೆಯಾ?,ರುತೆ. 6) ಕಾಟಕ ಭೂಕಂಾಯ ಅ\ಯಮ 1964 ರ ಕಲಂ 133 ರ ಪ0ಾರ ಹಕುN ಾಖೆಗಳನ ನಮೂದುಗಳನು* ಅದ0ೆN =ರುದ]$ಾ, ರುಜು$ಾ'ಾಗುವವ9ೆೆ ಜ$ಾದುೆಂದು ಪ^ವ _ಾವೆ ೊಂದ;ೇ0ಾ,ರುತೆ. ಈ Kನ*ೆಯ ಪಸುತ ಹಕುN ಾಖೆಗಳ ನಮೂಾ,ರುವ = ೕಣದಂ'ೆ Aೕ& Cಾ&ರುವQದ-ಂದ ಸದ- Aೕ& Cಾಡುವ PಾವQೇ ನೂWನW'ೆ ಉಂ:ಾ,ೆ ಎಂದು ಕಂಡು ಬರುವQಲ. ಈ ಎಾ ಅಂಶಗಳ Kನ*ೆಯ GೕಲIನ=ಾರರು ತಮI GೕಲIನ=ಯ ಪ.*ತ Aೕ&ಯು ತFಾU,ೆ ಎಂದು ದೃಢಪTbರುವQಲ$ಾದ?-ಂದ GೕಲIನ=ಯನು* ವcಾೊXಸುವQದು ಸೂಕ$ೆಂದು wÃCಾ , ಈ ಾWPಾಲಯವQ ಈ 0ೆಳಕಂಡಂ'ೆ ಆೇ. ೆ. 14 ಆೇಶ ಆೇಶ ಆೇಶ ಆೇಶ ಕಾಟಕ ಭೂಕಂಾಯ ಅ\ಯಮ 1964 ರ ಕಲಂ 49(ಎ) ಅ& ಸೂdತ$ಾದ ಅಂಶಗಳನುಾರ, ;ೆಂಗಳeರು ದfಣ 'ಾಲೂಕು, 0ೆಂೇ- ೋಬX, g.ಎಂ.0ಾವh ಾಮದ ಸ.ನಂ. 138 ರ ಸ.ನಂ.138/1 -ಂದ 16 ರವ9ೆೆ ಎಂದು ಸ.ನಂ. 138/1 ರ 138/1ಎ, 1g, 1 ಎಂದು, ¸À.£ÀA.138/11gÀ°è ¸À.£ÀA.138/11J, 11©, 11¹ JAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸À.£ÀA. 161 gÀ°è ¸À.£ÀA. 161/1 jAzÀ 161/5 JAzÀÄ, ಸ.ನಂ. 161/1 ರ 161/1ಎ, 1g, 1 ಎಂದು, ದುರಾದ ಪ.*ತ KಾS Aೕ& ಾಖೆಗಳಂ'ೆ ;ಾಂದುCಾಪQ ಅಳ'ೆಗXೆ 'ಾBೆiಡುವ ಸಂದಭದ ಹಕುN ಾಖೆಗಳಂ'ೆ = ೕಣ0ೆN ವW'ಾWಸ$ಾಗುವ ಬೆj ಕಾಟಕ ಭೂಕಂಾಯ ಅ\ಯಮ 1964 ರ ಕಲಂ 140(2) ರ& ಸೂಕ ಪಾವೆ ತPಾ-ಸುವ ಬೆj ಭೂಾಖೆಗಳ ಸಾಯಕ ೇಶಕ-ೆ ಸೂಚೆ ೕಡಾ,ೆ ಾಗೂ ಪಾವೆಯ =ವ- ದ ಎಾ ಅಂಶಗಳ Kನ*ೆಯ GೕಲIನ=ಯನು* ವcಾೊX ಆೇ. ೆ. ಈ GೕಲNಂಡ ಆೇಶವನು* ಉಕೇಖನ ೕ&, ಗಣ<ೕಕ- ದ ಪ#ಯನು* ಓ ಪ-ಷN- , ಾಂಕ: 02-09-2020 ರಂದು 'ೆ9ೆದ ಾWPಾಲಯದ ಬKರಂಗ$ಾ, mೂೕnಸಾ,ೆ." 20. The respondent No.4, while dismissing the appeal, has categorically recorded that the phodi proceedings conducted during the year 1969-70 were in accordance with law and that no discrepancies were found in the hissa demarcation carried out during the said period. However, despite such a conclusive finding, respondent No.4 has clearly exceeded his authority by indirectly keeping the matter alive. This is done through the issuance of directions to respondent No.6, the Tahsildar, under Section 140(2) of the 15 Karnataka Land Revenue Act, purportedly for rectifying discrepancies in the boundary measurements of the hissas by tallying them with the title documents. 21. Such directions, it is submitted, are not only arbitrary but are also beyond the scope of authority vested in respondent No.6. Once the competent authority, i.e., respondent No.4, has concluded that no discrepancies exist in the phodi or Hissa proceedings, it is wholly impermissible to direct a rectification exercise aimed at reconciling boundary measurements with title documents. This conduct by respondent No.4, despite having held that no errors exist, indicates a clear misuse of discretion and suggests malafide intent. 22. Pursuant to the directions issued by respondent No.4, respondent No.6 has initiated the process of modifying or rectifying the boundaries in respect of Sy.Nos.138 and 161. However, it is pertinent to clarify that in the present writ 16 petition, only Sy.No.161/5 is the subject matter of challenge and consideration. 23. Upon a more detailed examination of the records, particularly the order dated 11.10.2017 passed by respondent No.3, the Joint Director of Land Records, it becomes evident that further proceedings were initiated in connection with Sy.No.161. As per Annexure-J, the said order approved the reconstitution of the tippanni and directed respondent No.5 to initiate steps to rectify the entries relating to kharab land in the Akarband register. These actions were initiated based on an application submitted by respondent No.8. 24. In the course of re-building the Land Records (LR) tippanni for Sy.No.161, the authorities reportedly discovered two significant discrepancies: (i) The measurement of boundaries as recorded in the hissa tippanni did not match the total extent recorded in the Akarband register; and (ii) An extent of 14 acres and 10 guntas, which was earlier classified 17 as Akarband, was found to be actually 'B' kharab and required reclassification accordingly. 25. The directions issued by respondent No.3 under Annexure-J are accompanied by two tabular statements, identified as Index-I and Index-II. For the purposes of the present proceedings, attention is confined exclusively to the details pertaining to Sy.No.161. The discrepancies highlighted in the order through the aforementioned indices are central to the challenge raised herein. C£ÀħAzsÀ-1 FV£ÀAvÉ DPÁgÀ§Azï «¹ÛÃtð ¸À.£ÀA L£ï RgÁ§Ä 'J' RgÁ§Ä '©' RgÁ§Ä '¹' ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ «¹ÛÃtð ¨Á§Ä zÀgÀ DPÁgÀ 138 272-14 45-26 2-02 47-28 224-26 RÄ¶Ì 0-84 188-71 161 123-01 14-10 0-15 14-25 108-16 RÄ¶Ì 0-84 82-42 C£ÀħAzsÀ-2 wzÀÄÝ¥ÀrAiÀÄAvÉ DPÁgÀ§Azï «¹ÛÃtð ¸À.£ÀA L£ï RgÁ§Ä 'J' RgÁ§Ä '©' RgÁ§Ä '¹' ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ «¹ÛÃtð ¨Á§Ä zÀgÀ DPÁgÀ 138 272-14 - 48-38 48-38 223-16 RÄ¶Ì 0-84 187-66 161 123-01 - 14-25 14-25 108-16 RÄ¶Ì 0-84 82-42 Emphasis Supplied by me 18 26. Upon examining the two tables annexed to the order dated 11.10.2017, it becomes evident that respondent No.3, while issuing directions to respondent No.5, has failed to take cognizance of a crucial fact namely, that Sy.No.161 had already undergone phodi operations and was subdivided into Sy.Nos.161/1, 161/2, 161/3, 161/4, and 161/5 as far back as in the year 1969-70. Despite this undisputed factual position, respondent No.3 appears to have proceeded under a mistaken assumption that the original Sy.No.161 continues to exist as a whole and undivided survey number in the revenue records. This assumption is patently erroneous and inconsistent with the actual state of the records. 27. Acting on the basis of the said directions issued by respondent No.3 (as per Annexure–J), respondent No.5 has, under the guise of implementing the order dated 11.10.2017, proceeded to cancel the hissa numbers within Sy.No.161, as evidenced by Annexure–J1. In doing so, respondent No.5 has entirely overlooked the fact that Sy.No.161 no longer exists in 19 its original form and has long since been subdivided. What is particularly striking is that the order passed by respondent No.5 (Annexure–J1) now reflects 14 acres and 25 guntas of land earlier classified as ‘A’ kharab within Sy.No.161 as having been reclassified as ‘B’ kharab. The 'A' kharab extent is now shown as 'Nil'. Consequently, respondent No.5 has directed rectification of the revenue records and corresponding amendments in the Akarband register to reflect this erroneous reclassification. 28. Following the orders passed by respondent Nos.3 and 5, i.e., Annexures–J and J1 respectively, respondent No.4 has registered a suo motu appeal and issued notices to all the landholders and occupants pertaining to Sy.Nos.138 and 161. However, for the purpose of the present proceedings, only Sy.No.161 is relevant. The conclusions drawn by respondent No.4, upon verifying the records, have already been discussed earlier. Respondent No.4 has unequivocally held that cancellation of hissa numbers is impermissible in view of the fact that Sy.No.161 has been subdivided way back in 1969-70. 20 29. Notwithstanding this clear finding, respondent No.4, in a rather contradictory move, proceeds to issue a direction to respondent No.5 to rectify the discrepancies in boundary measurements. This direction is issued under the purported exercise of powers under Section 140(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and instructs respondent No.5 to undertake a boundary correction exercise by referring to the respective title documents. This part of the order is clearly inconsistent with the earlier finding recorded by respondent No.4 himself, wherein it was held that the sub- divisions of Sy.No.161 are legal and final and that there is no scope for any further rectification of boundary measurements. 30. Thus, the core issue that arises for consideration before this Court is whether respondent No.4, having categorically concluded that the sub-divisions of Sy.No.161 were effected in 1969-70 and further noting that Sy.No.161/1 has itself been further subdivided in 1974 into Sy.Nos.161/1A, 161/1B, 161/1C and 161/1D with multiple transactions having 21 since taken place in these subdivisions, could have validly issued a subsequent direction to undertake a rectification of the boundary measurements. 31. This Court is of the view that the issuance of such a direction, after recording a finding that no discrepancies exist and that multiple sub-divisions and transactions have occurred, is wholly without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable. This latter portion of the order is not only contrary to the Akarband records but also runs counter to the reasoning recorded in the same order by respondent No.4, as evidenced by Annexure–K, insofar as Sy.No.161 is concerned. 32. For ease of reference and to underscore the inconsistencies, this Court deems it appropriate to extract below the relevant table from Annexure–K, which highlight the discrepancies in the official records and form the basis of the impugned rectification proceedings. 22 DPÁgÀ§A¢£ÀAvÉ «¹ÛÃtð ¸À.£ÀA. »¸Áì £ÀA L£ï J-UÀÄ RgÁ¨ï J-UÀÄ ¨ÁQ J-UÀÄ ¨Á§Ä DPÁgÀ 161 1 93-24 11-35 81-29 RÄ¶Ì 59-99 2 07-39 01-06 06-33 " 05-74 3 05-19 0-19 05-00 " 04-20 4 10-32 0-30 10-02 " 08-45 5 05-07 0-15 04-32 " 04-01 MlÄÖ 123-01 14-25 108-16 188-81 ............ 1973 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è ¸À.£ÀA. 161/1 gÀ°è 161/1J, 1©, 1¹ JAzÀÄ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ »¸Áì zÀÄgÀ¹ÛUÀ¼ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 33. Upon perusal of the relevant table, it becomes evident that Sy.No.161 has been subjected to five sub- divisions. In the present writ petition, the land bearing Sy.No.161/5, measuring 5 acres and 7 guntas, is the specific subject matter under consideration. The petitioner’s husband is stated to have lawfully purchased this extent of land, which also includes 15 guntas classified as ‘A’ kharab land. The total extent of A kharab land recorded in respect of Sy.No.161 is 14 acres and 25 guntas. 34. Furthermore, the records also indicate that Sy.No.161/1 has subsequently undergone four additional sub- divisions, resulting in the creation of Sy.Nos.161/1A, 161/1B, 23 161/1C, and 161/1D. These sequential sub-divisions further reinforce the settled nature of the land records and the finality attached to the phodi proceedings conducted decades ago. 35. In view of the relevance of these sub-divisions to the controversy at hand, this Court considers it appropriate to extract below the table depicting the sub-division of Sy.No.161/1 into its four respective parts: DPÁgÀ§A¢£ÀAvÉ «¹ÛÃtð ¸À.£ÀA. »¸Áì £ÀA L£ï J-UÀÄ RgÁ¨ï J-UÀÄ ¨ÁQ J-UÀÄ ¨Á§Ä DPÁgÀ 161 1J 81-06 11-08 69-38 RÄ¶Ì 50-09 1© 05-24 0-24 05-00 " 04-20 1¹ 03-17 - 03-17 " 02-88 1r 03-17 0-03 03-14 " 02-82 MlÄÖ 93-24 11-35 81-29 59-99 36. A careful examination of the table referred to above clearly indicates that in Sy.Nos. 161/1A to 161/1D, a total extent of 11 acres and 35 guntas has been recorded as ‘A’ kharab land. This finding is of significance in the present case, as it reinforces the settled nature of 24 the phodi and hissa proceedings concerning Sy.No.161 and its various sub-divisions. 37. Pursuant to the directions issued by respondent No.4, respondent No.6, without any authority or jurisdiction, has proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 28.07.2022 which is produced at Annexure–Q. The sketch relied upon by respondent No.8, forming part of the record as Annexure–R33, shows a significant and unexplained reduction in the extent of land held by the petitioner in Sy.No.161/5. This newly drawn phodi and PT sheet, prepared at the instance of respondent No.6, is in direct contravention of the conclusions reached by respondent No.4 himself in his detailed findings as per Annexure–K. 38. The entire exercise undertaken by the revenue authorities, particularly respondents No.5 and 6, is demonstrably contrary to the existing land records and is unsupported by law. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.8 has candidly admitted to having submitted an application 25 claiming ownership over 20 acres of land situated in Sy.No.161/1A. A perusal of the sketches produced by both the petitioner and respondent No.8 clearly establishes that the land held by respondent No.8 is located on the extreme eastern boundary of Sy.No.161/1A, while the petitioner’s land in Sy.No.161/5 is located on a completely different side, with several intervening properties lying between the two holdings. 39. The core issue that arises for consideration is whether, while entertaining an application filed by respondent No.8 seeking phodi in Sy.No.161/1A, the revenue authorities were justified in disturbing the B kharab classification and extending their action to other sub-divisions, including Sy.No.161/5. This question becomes all the more pertinent in light of the unambiguous finding recorded by respondent No.4 that no discrepancies exist in the boundary measurements or hissa allotments post-subdivision. 40. This Court is of the considered view that the entire process initiated by respondent No.6, purportedly pursuant to 26 the directions of respondent No.4, despite dismissal of the appeal, is tainted with malafides. The exercise of reclassifying or correcting A kharab land, without any formal challenge to the original phodi proceedings conducted in 1969-70, is fundamentally flawed and lacks legal sanction. The petitioner has purchased Sy.No.161/5, measuring 5 acres and 7 guntas, only after the land was subdivided into five parts. Once sub- division is effected and the land is conveyed, the distinct identity and character of Sy.No.161/5 stands crystallized. The presence of 15 guntas of 'A' kharab within the petitioner’s holding forms part of a settled record, and this cannot be unsettled at the behest of respondent No.8, who is merely the holder of 20 acres in Sy.No.161/1A. 41. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding discrepancies in the extent of land held by respondent No.8 is well-founded. A comparative analysis of the mutation records and revenue documents reveals substantial inconsistencies. While the mutation entry reflects that respondent No.8 holds 21 acres in Sy.No.161/1A, 27 the RTC extract produced at Annexure–R12 indicates possession of 20 acres. Moreover, the title documents produced by respondent No.8 show ownership to the extent of only 18 acres. Thus, the discrepancy lies entirely within the records pertaining to respondent No.8’s landholding in Sy.No.161/1A. Any rectification, if at all warranted, ought to have been confined strictly to Sy.No.161/1A and should not have extended to other sub-divisions such as Sy.Nos.161/2, 161/3, 161/4, 161/5, or 161/1B to 161/1D. 42. The entire administrative action undertaken by the revenue authorities is arbitrary, irregular, and not in consonance with any procedure established under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.8 made a feeble attempt to argue that the matter may be remitted back to respondent No.6, on the premise that the petitioner was not heard and that principles of natural justice were violated. However, this Court is not inclined to accept such a suggestion. Even if respondent No.8 concedes or consents to such relief being 28 granted, the foundational illegality in disturbing the sub- divided holdings, despite the finality attached to phodi conducted in 1969-70 renders the entire process vitiated. Therefore, the very initiation of enquiry into the lands in Sy.Nos.161/2 to 161/5 and Sy.Nos.161/1B to 161/1D was uncalled for and wholly without jurisdiction. 43. It is further pertinent to observe that the owners of the lands situated in Sy.Nos.161/2, 161/3, 161/4, and in Sy.Nos.161/1B, 161/1C, and 161/1D are located on the extreme western flank of the original Sy.No.161. These land parcels are vertically aligned and are geographically distinct from Sy.No.161/1A. Importantly, there are no inter se disputes among these landowners regarding boundary alignments or extents. Despite the absence of any grievance or discrepancy reported by these parties, the authorities have inexplicably extended the boundary rectification exercise to include their lands as well, thereby overreaching their mandate and causing unnecessary legal uncertainty. As such, the order impugned in this writ petition is liable to be quashed. 29 44. It is a well-settled principle of law that once phodi proceedings are lawfully conducted and concluded, no fresh phodi can be initiated unless the original hissa proceedings are legally challenged and set aside in the manner prescribed by law. In the instant case, the phodi pertaining to Sy.No.161 was completed as early as 1969-70. Respondent No.4, after securing and examining the original land records, has arrived at the categorical conclusion that there are no discrepancies in the original moola tippani. Therefore, the subsequent attempts by the revenue authorities to reopen and alter the settled sub-divisions are impermissible in law and unsustainable on facts. 45. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned order passed by the respondent No.4 as per Annexure-K and the order 30 passed by respondent No.6 as per Annexure-Q are quashed; (iii) Pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA