- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31918 WP No. 13568 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 13568 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI NARASHIMHAMURTHY, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, GRAND SON OF LATE DODDARANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A KALLUKUNTE VILLAGE, SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 561 203. 2. SRI MUNIRAJU, S/O LATE NYATHAPPA, GRAND SON OF LATE DODDARANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A KALLUKUNTE VILLAGE, SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 561 203. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. FAYAZ SAB B G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDING, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31918 WP No. 13568 of 2024 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVANA, IST FLOOR, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 110. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, DODDABALALPURA, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 561 201. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 561 201. 5. SRI.NARAYANAPPA, SON OF VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALKUNTE VILLAGE, SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 561 201. 6. SRI.PUTTAIAH, SON OF DODDAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/A KALKUNTE VILLAGE, SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 561 201. 7. SRI.NANDISHA, SON OF PUTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A KALKUNTE VILLAGE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31918 WP No. 13568 of 2024 SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 561 201. 8. SRI.CHIKKAPPAIAH, SON OF VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/A KALKUNTE VILLAGE, SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 561 201. 9. SRI.NARAYANAPPA, SON OF KONDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/A KALKUNTE VILLAGE, SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 561 201. 10. SRI.RANGADHAMAIAH, SON OF LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/A KALKUNTE AND AMALAGUNTE VILLAGE, SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 561 201. 11. SRI.MUDDARANGAIAH, SON OF LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/A KALKUNTE AND AMALAGUNTE VILLAGE, SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 561 201. 12 SRI.NAGARAJA, SON OF LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/A KALKUNTE VILLAGE, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31918 WP No. 13568 of 2024 SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 561 201. 13 RANGAMMA, D/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/A KALKUNTE VILLAGE, SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 561 201. 14 SMT.LAKSHMAMMA, W/O RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R/A KALKUNTE VILLAGE, SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 561 201. 15 SRI K J GEORGE, S/O JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/A NO.87, 5TH AVENUE TEACHER'S COLONY, KOLARAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 038. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SESHU V., HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR R-5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONERS AND GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS. QUASH AN IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 13.12.2022 PASSED BY THE R4 IN CASE NO.RRT/CR/819/2020.21 BY VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 163(2) OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 AND ETC., - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31918 WP No. 13568 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order at Annexure-K passed by the Thasildar, Doddaballapura Taluk. 2. The original grievance of the petitioner is regarding the forfeiture clause incorporated in the revenue records pertaining to 28 acres of land in Sy.No.21, Kalkunte Village, Sasalu Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk. It is the contention of the petitioners that Late Sri.Rangappa S/o Doddarangappa was the owner and Khatedar in respect of the lands in question, having been granted the lands by way of darkasth order bearing A.D.No.14/1922- 23, dated 26.06.1922. However, an order of forfeiture was passed by the revenue authorities somewhere in the year 1936 and the lands were shown as 'Government Pada'. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31918 WP No. 13568 of 2024 3. However, learned Senior Counsel Sri.D.R.Ravishankar appearing for private respondent has pointed out to Annexure-G, which is the original order passed by the Thasildar at the instance of Sri.Rangappa himself. The application was filed by Sri.Rangappa during his lifetime to remove the forfeiture clause. However, respondent Nos.5 to 9 herein were arrayed as respondents in those proceedings, who claimed that they were in continuous and long possession of the property in question and therefore, they sought for grant in their favour. The Thasildar passed an order on 03.05.1999, rejecting the application filed by Sri.Rangappa on the ground that he was not in cultivation of the lands and it was found that the respondents were in possession. However, the claim of the private respondents were also rejected by the Thasildar, on the ground that he had no power to consider such a claim made by the private respondents for grant of land. Sri.Rangappa, challenged the order before the Assistant Commissioner in Case bearing RA.No.183/2001- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31918 WP No. 13568 of 2024 02 and the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed at the hands of Sri.Rangappa by order dated 02.07.2004. 4. In the meanwhile, the said Sri.Rangappa died and private respondent Nos.10 to 14 preferred a second appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, under Section 50 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (herein after referred as 'the Act') and arrayed respondent Nos.5 to 9 herein as party respondents to the proceedings. The Deputy Commissioner found that the Thasildar has not verified the records and did not find out as to whether the appellants were the legal heirs of Late Sri.Rangappa. Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed while setting aside the order passed by the Thasildar and the matter was remanded back to the Thasildar to consider the grievances of the parties having regard to Section 163(2) of the Act. The Thasildar, while considering the matter on remand, has recorded statements made at the hands of respondent Nos.5 to 9 herein that they are not interested - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31918 WP No. 13568 of 2024 in pursuing their rights or claim in respect of the property in question. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed by the Thasildar, directing the collection of arrears of land revenue to the tune of Rs.1,313.76 and with further direction to remove the forfeiture clause from the revenue records and restore the names of respondent Nos.10 to 14 in the revenue records. Accordingly, names of respondent Nos.10 to 14 were restored in the revenue records and thereafter, they have sold the property by a registered sale deed dated 07.07.2023 in favour of respondent No.15 herein. In that view of the matter, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that no useful purpose would be served in raising a challenge to the impugned order passed by the Thasildar, having regard to the subsequent developments. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the dispute now raised at the hands of the petitioners would touch upon the disputed questions of title and the matter cannot be remanded to revenue authorities to decide the same. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31918 WP No. 13568 of 2024 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that the finding of facts recorded by the Thasildar regarding the legal heirs of Late Sri.Rangappa and the statements said to have been made by respondent Nos.5 to 9 giving up their rights in respect of the lands in question are all far from the true facts and it is obvious that they have obtained an order by collusion and therefore, the impugned order has to be set aside by remanding the matter back for fresh consideration. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, having regard to the admitted fact that immediately after the impugned orders were passed by the Thasildar, the names of private respondent Nos.10 to 14 were mutated in the revenue records and thereafter, they have sold the property in favour of respondent No.15. That being the position, no useful purpose would be served in setting aside the impugned order passed by Thasildar or remanding the matter back to the revenue authorities to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31918 WP No. 13568 of 2024 consider the issue as to whether Sri.Rangappa had any issues and whether the petitioners herein are his grand children. The law is well laid that disputed questions of title cannot be decided by any revenue authorities and such questions can only be decided by a Competent Civil Court. 7. In that view of the matter and having regard to the subsequent developments, where the lands have been sold by respondent Nos.10 to 14 in favour of respondent No.15 and the name of respondent No.15 is entered in the revenue records, the writ petition stands disposed of, while reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Competent Civil Court to redress their grievance. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36