- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31527-DB WP No. 7830 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT PETITION NO. 7830 OF 2024 (KLGP) BETWEEN: 1. K. MUNIRAJU SON OF LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 2. K BABU SON OF LATE KATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 3. 4. K GANESH SON OF LATE KATAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, VENKATARAMANAPPA SON OF LATE PUTAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT PATTANDUR AGRAHARA, OPPOSITE TO GOVERNMENT SCHOOL ROAD, WHITE FIELD POST, BENGALURU-560 066. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.MURTHY,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31527-DB WP No. 7830 of 2024 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE TAHASILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK, K.R PURAM, BENGALURU-560 036. 3. M. MUNIKENCHAPPA SON OF LATE K.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO. 172, PATTANDUR AGRAHARA OPPOSITE TO GOVERNMENT SCHOOL ROAD, WHITE FIELD POST, BENGALURU-560 066. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2, SRI.S.NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A WRIT IN LIKE NATURE QUASHING/SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20/02/2024, PASSED IN LGC(P) 458/2022 BY THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURT AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF LGC(P)458/2022 AS THE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31527-DB WP No. 7830 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri. Nagesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 2. This petition is filed seeking quashing/setting aside of the impugned order dated 20.02.2024 passed in LGC(P) 458/2022 by the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court at Bengaluru and seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of LGC(P)458/2022. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that under a valid order made in 1962 in case No.108/59-60 by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bengaluru Circle, Bengaluru, the predecessors in interest were allotted the land in question in proceedings under Section 10 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Code, 1954. It is stated that the Tehsildar had given - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31527-DB WP No. 7830 of 2024 report in their favour with regard to the legality of their allotment under the aforesaid Inam Abolition Act. But the Tehsildar himself turned around and submitted before the Special Court in proceedings under the Act, 2011 that the order of allotment made in the year 1962 was fraudulent. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents has strongly opposed the petition stating that a case of manipulation and fraud in the revenue records has been noticed by the respondent - State and accordingly, proceedings before the Special Court under the Act, 2011 are justified. It is stated that there is no error, illegality or perversity in the order impugned. 5. We have perused the order under challenge. It appears that objections were filed by the respondents, that is, the petitioners herein, in the proceedings before the Special Court to vacate the injunction granted and for discharge from the offences alleged against them. After formulating a point for consideration, the Special Court held that no case for vacation of the injunction granted and for discharging the respondents therein from the alleged offences were made out. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31527-DB WP No. 7830 of 2024 objections of the respondents were rejected. The reasons assigned by the Special Court are evident from the order. Form No.8 had been perused by the Special Court which did not reflect Sy.No.108 and it only showed Sy.No.114 and 103. In Form No.8, it had been mentioned that as far as Sy.No.103, to the extent of 23 guntas is concerned, the claim is rejected. Even the endorsement given by the Tehsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk showed that in Case No.108/59-60, which case, incidentally is the one in which the alleged order of 1962 is the basis for the petitioner herein to state its claim, there was reflected an entry in the name of Puttamuniyappa in respect of Sy.No.114 and 103 but there was no entry in respect of Sy.No.108. The Special Court noticed that though in the xerox copy in the grant order, Sy.No.108 has been shown but the specific case of the complainant was that the respondent therein being an advocate had fabricated the revenue documents and inserted Sy.No.108 (i.e as New Sy.No.108/1) measuring 39 guntas. It was noticed by the Special Court that to refuse the contention of the complainant, the respondents had not produced the original certificate or other records. The Special Court noticed that as far as Sy.No.114 is concerned, it - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31527-DB WP No. 7830 of 2024 appears in the order of Case No.108/59-60, there was no dispute. The Special Court therefore observed that the matter requires a detailed trial. 6. In the instant case, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the Tehsildar had confirmed the genuineness of the grant and therefore it was not for the Special Court to proceed against the petitioners herein. However, as noticed by the Special Court that the documents in respect of Sy.No.108 were alleged to be fraudulent by the complainant, under such circumstances, it would be appropriate that a detailed trial be held to determine the issue. We also notice that the Special Court was conscious of the fact that merits of the case is not discussed at this stage as it would prejudice the case of the parties at the time of the trial. Accordingly, the objections filed by the petitioners was rejected. 7. The order impugned, in our considered opinion is balanced and is in accordance with law. As such, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order impugned. This petition is therefore, dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31527-DB WP No. 7830 of 2024 8. The certified copies of the documents filed by the counsel for the parties, if any, may be returned to them as per the Rules after retaining the photo copies of the same on record. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11