- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25110 WP No. 21410 of 2022 C/W WP No. 28765 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.21410 OF 2022 (KLR-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.28765 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) IN WP No. 21410/2022 BETWEEN: 1. M G JAIRAM S/O LATE M N GANESHAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS MAKKIMANE, BELLANDUR HONNAVALLI POST SHRINGERI TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577139. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA R.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560001. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU SUB DIVISION CHIKKAMAAGALURU 577139 3. TAHASILDAR SHRINGERI TALUK Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25110 WP No. 21410 of 2022 C/W WP No. 28765 of 2023 SHRENGERI CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577139. 4. M G RAVISHANKAR S/O LT M N GANESHAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS MAKKIMANE, BELLANDUR HONNAVALLI POST SHRINGERI TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577139. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2022 BEARING NO.RA.62/2022 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMGALURU SUB DIVISION - THE RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN, AS PER ANNEXURE-F, AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW. IN WP NO. 28765/2023: BETWEEN: 1. SRI. M.G. JAIRAM S/O LATE M N GANESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, MAKKIMANE, BELLANDUR, HONNAVALLI POST, SHRINGERI TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577139. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA R.M., ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25110 WP No. 21410 of 2022 C/W WP No. 28765 of 2023 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001. 2. THE ASSSITANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU SUB DIVISION, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577139. 3. THE TAHSILDAR SHRINGERI TALUK, SHRINGERI, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577139. 4. M G RAVISHANKAR S/O LATE M.N. GANESHAIAH, MAKKIMANE, BELLANDUR, HONNAVALLI POST, SHRINGERI TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577139. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2023 PASSED BY THE TAHASILDHAR, SRINGERI AND TALUK MAGISTRATE, SRINGERI TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, THE RESPONDENTNO.3 HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-H AS THE SAME IS IN VIOLATION OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 23.11.2022 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO.21410 OF 2022 AS SUCH IT IS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY; AND ETC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25110 WP No. 21410 of 2022 C/W WP No. 28765 of 2023 THESE PETITIONS, 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 1. In W.P.No.28765/2023, petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 07.11.2023 in No.94C:CR:02/2022- 23, passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure-H) in violation of the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.21410/2022, inter alia, sought for quashing the eviction notice dated 11.12.2023 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure-J). 2. In W.P.No.21410/2022, petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 30.05.2022 in R.A.No.62/2022 (Annexure-F), passed by respondent No.2 herein. 3. Facts in nutshell are that, the petitioner claims to be an agriculturist having agricultural land bearing Sy.No.213 to 215 at Bellandur Village, Chikkamagalur Taluk and District. It is also stated that petitioner has constructed a house during 1994 in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25110 WP No. 21410 of 2022 C/W WP No. 28765 of 2023 the land belonging to the Government in Sy.No.207 and accordingly, khata in respect of the land in question was made in favour of the petitioner. It is also stated that since petitioner was in occupation of the said house, the respondent - Government has introduced 'Akrama and Sakrama Scheme' and accordingly, the petitioner has made an application to respondent - authorities claiming grant in respect of the said land and same was granted as 'temporary' by letter dated 20.09.2006 (Annexure-A) and thereafter, the said temporary grant was confirmed as per Annexure-C dated 11.12.2014. It is also stated that the petitioner herein has complied with the conditions imposed by the respondent - State. 4. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.4 has approached respondent No.2 in R.A.No.105/2016 stating that the order of Grant made in favour of the petitioner is incorrect and accordingly, the second respondent herein, vide order dated 14.07.2021, remitted the matter to respondent No.3 to re- consider the case of the parties afresh and thereafter the respondent No.3 as per Annexure-E arrived at a conclusion that the order of grant made in favour of the petitioner is just and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25110 WP No. 21410 of 2022 C/W WP No. 28765 of 2023 proper and same was again questioned by respondent No.4 before respondent No.2 as per Annexure-F and in the said proceedings, the respondent No.2 again remanded the matter to respondent No.3 to re-consider the case of the parties afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. In the meanwhile, the petitioner herein has filed W.P.No.21410/2022 challenging the order dated 30.05.2022 in R.A.No.62/2022, passed by respondent No.2. This Court, vide order dated 23.11.2022 has granted interim stay till the next date of hearing. Thereafter, the respondent No.3, without considering the order of stay passed by this Court, has issued the impugned order dated 07.11.2023 (Annexure-H) as well as the order of notice dated 11.12.2023(Annexure-J) and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented W.P.No.28765/2023, assailing the said orders at Annexures - H and J. 5. I have heard Sri. Mallikarjuna R.M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25110 WP No. 21410 of 2022 C/W WP No. 28765 of 2023 and Sri. S. Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4, in both the Writ Petitions. 6. Sri. Mallikarjuna R.M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, invited the attention of this Court to the order dated 23.11.2022 in W.P.No.21410/2022 and submitted that respondent No.3 without obeying the order of stay passed by this Court, has passed the order impugned at Annexure-H which requires to be set aside, as the interim order is granted by this Court staying the entire proceedings relating to the grant of land made in favour of the appellant therein in R.A.No.62/2022 and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. He also submitted, by referring to the impugned order, that the respondent No.3 has not considered the case of the petitioner and no opportunity has been extended to the petitioner herein and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 7. Per contra, Sri. S. Rajashekar, learned counsel for respondent No.4, invited the attention of the Court to the condition stipulated in the Annexures - A and C and also invited the attention to the application filed by the petitioner herein as - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25110 WP No. 21410 of 2022 C/W WP No. 28765 of 2023 per Annexure-R2, wherein, the petitioner has declared that he does not possess any residential house. Based on the same, the revenue authorities have given a report that petitioner has no other alternative residential premises and accordingly, the petitioner is claiming right over the premises in which he resides. It is also forthcoming from the statement of objections that the petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that, he has no alternative residence except the land in question that has been claimed in these writ petitions. Learned counsel for respondent, further invited the attention of the Court to the registered Sale Deed dated 20.03.1995 (Annexure-R8 & R9), as well as the paper publication at Annexure-R10 which would indicate that the petitioner is having two more residential premises and in this regard, the petitioner himself has given the paper publication stating that the properties mentioned in Annexures - R8 and R9 are the self acquired properties of the petitioner herein. Therefore, it is contended by Sri. Rajashekar, that the application filed by the petitioner herein claiming grant of house in question as per Annexure-R2 is incorrect and contrary to records and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25110 WP No. 21410 of 2022 C/W WP No. 28765 of 2023 8. Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - authorities sought to justify the impugned order at Annexure-H and submitted that this Court, on 23.11.2022 granted interim order in W.P.No.21410/2022 till the next date of hearing, and as the said interim order was not extended beyond six months and in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY PVT. LTD. Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, reported in AIR 2018 SC 2039, the respondent No.3 has proceeded with the matter with bona fide reasons and passed the impugned order, taking into consideration the fraud committed by the petitioner herein by filing the application seeking grant of house. 9. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the core question that requires to be answered in these writ petitions is, 'whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of house as per the permanent grant order dated 11.12.2014 (Annexure-C)? 10. On careful examination of the writ papers would indicate that the petitioner herein has deliberately suppressed the facts - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25110 WP No. 21410 of 2022 C/W WP No. 28765 of 2023 before the respondent No.3 while making an application seeking grant of house as per Annexure-R2 by stating that he does not have any residential house. It is also forthcoming from the writ petition that the petitioner has filed an affidavit before the respondent No.3 with regard to substantiating that he does not possess any house for his residential purpose. However, on careful examination of the sale deed dated 20.03.1985 Annexure-R8 and R9, makes it clear that petitioner has two residential premises in the very same area. In that view of the matter, the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands and that apart, the petitioner herein has suppressed the material facts before respondent No.3 while securing order of temporary grant as per Annexure-A as well as the grant made as per Annexure-C. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by learned counsel for respondent No.4 and learned Additional Government Advocate that the petitioner has approached the respondents with unclean hands. 11. 11. In so far as the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order at Annexure-H during the pendency of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25110 WP No. 21410 of 2022 C/W WP No. 28765 of 2023 stay order passed by this Court, it is to be noted that, this Court has granted the order of stay on 23.11.2022 and thereafter, the matter was listed before this Court on 02.01.2024 and interim order was not extended. Be that as it may be. In view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY PVT. LTD. (supra), wherein it is observed that, if the interim order passed by the High courts in civil and criminal trials is not extended for a period of six months, same shall automatically expire after six months from the date of such order, unless extended by an express order. In view of the discrepancy in understanding of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in so far as extension of interim order is concerned, the respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order at Annexure-H, which appears that the order passed by respondent No.3 is bona fide in nature and therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein are not accepted. Even otherwise, one who seeks equity, must do equity. In the present proceedings, the petitioner has filed false affidavit and application to secure the house in question, and therefore, I do - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25110 WP No. 21410 of 2022 C/W WP No. 28765 of 2023 not find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. In view of the above, taking into consideration that the petitioner though had two residential houses, and suppressing the very same fact before the respondents, attempted to knock off the house property in question by filing false affidavit as well as application as per Annexure-R2, I am of the view that, the contentions raised by the petitioner herein cannot be accepted. 13. In that view of the matter, both the writ petitions are hereby rejected as devoid of merits. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53