- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27918 WP No. 45865 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.45865 OF 2019 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. A.G.SHIVAKUMAR SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS GEETHA W/O LATE A.G.SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 2. RUDRAKUMAR A.G S/O LATE A.G.SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 3. ROOPA A.G. D/O LATE A.G.SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS ALL ARE AGRICULTURIST AND RESIDENTS OF ARALIKOPPA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA - 577 302 4. 4(A) SHANTHARAJ S/O A.G.RUDRAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. SMT.NANDA KUMARI W/O LATE A.G.SHANTHARAJ Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27918 WP No. 45865 of 2019 4(B) 4(C) AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS OCC: HOMEMAKER SRI.A.G.MEGHARAJ S/O LATE A.G.SHANTHARAJ AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS OCC: EMPLOYEE SRI.MANOJ KUMAR A.G. S/O LATE A.G.SHANTHARAJ AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS OCC: ADVOCATE AND AGRICULTURIST PETITIONER NOS.4(A) TO 4(C) ARE RESIDENTS OF ARALIKOPPA VILLAGE HIRIYUR POST BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 302 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE ZILLA PANCHAYATH SHIVAMOGGA SHIVAMOGGA -577 201 BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 3. THE TAHASILDHAR BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27918 WP No. 45865 of 2019 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577 301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 5. ARALIKOPPA GRAMAPANCHAYATH BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577 301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT BY ITS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER/SECRETARY 6. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.BOPANNA B, AGA FOR R.1, R.3 AND R.6; SRI.B.J.ESWARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R.2, R.4 AND R.5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2018 PASSED BY THE R-4 IN PROCEEDINGS PRODUCED AS ANENXURE-Q TO THE WRIT PETITION AND THE NOTICE DATED 21.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-5 SERVED ON THE R-7 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-P TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27918 WP No. 45865 of 2019 ORAL ORDER The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 27.11.2018 passed by respondent No.4 - Grama Panchayath vide Annexure-Q and the notice dated 21.03.2019 issued by respondent No.5 vide Annexure-P. Consequently, the writ in the nature of mandamus is sought to direct respondent No.6 to conduct phodi and durasti in respect of the land measuring 21 guntas in Sy. No.37/1A1 and the land measuring 2 acres 25 guntas in Sy. No.37/2P situated at Aralikoppa, Kasaba - 2, Bhadravathi Taluk. 2. Facts leading to the case are as under; The petitioners claim that their ancestor, one A.G. Rudrappa, was the absolute owner of land bearing Sy. No. 37/1, totally measuring 4 acres 16 guntas. It is their contention that an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas from the said land was acquired by the erstwhile Government of Mysore for the purpose of allotting housing sites to the needy. The petitioners further assert that their ancestor - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27918 WP No. 45865 of 2019 sold 32 guntas of land to one Govindappa under a registered sale deed dated 27.06.1986, and another extent of 23 guntas to one Lakshmanayaka under a registered sale deed dated 30.12.1968. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that, based on a sketch and report (Annexures-G and G1), the Grama Panchayath authorities have arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners have encroached upon the 2 acres 20 guntas of land acquired by the then State of Mysore. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Grama Panchayath (Annexure-B), the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayath — respondent No.4. However, the said appeal was dismissed, and both the orders of the Grama Panchayath and the Executive Officer are now under challenge in the present petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Additional Government Advocate - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27918 WP No. 45865 of 2019 for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and the learned counsel for respondent No.6. Perused the material on record. 5. The core issue that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners’ ancestor retained 21 guntas of land in the original Sy. No.37/1. In order to adjudicate upon this issue, this Court finds it necessary to examine the proceedings and orders passed by the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner, and Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 6. It is brought to the notice of the Court that A.G. Shivakumar — husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 had lodged a complaint before the Assistant Commissioner seeking rectification of the entries in the RTC, Akarband, and Pukka Bandh. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Assistant Commissioner, the Tahsildar conducted an inquiry and submitted a report after verifying the title documents. In the said report, the Tahsildar observed that, notwithstanding the acquisition - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27918 WP No. 45865 of 2019 proceedings and the alienations effected by A.G. Rudrappa, the petitioners’ family continued to retain an extent of 23 guntas in Sy. No. 37/1. This Court finds it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the findings recorded by the Tahsildar, which is placed on record as Annexure-E. " xxxxxx ಕಡತದರುವ ಾಖ ಾ ಪೕ ಾ ಎ.ಆ.ಓ ನA 2866/1968-69 ಾಂಕ:-30-12-1968 ರಂದು ಎ. ರುದಪ !" ಗುರುಬಸಪ ರವಂದ ೕ ಲZÁäಾಯ( !" *ೕ+ಾ,ಾಯ( ಇವ.ೆ 01ೕಣ3 140*180 ಕಯಪತ4ಾದಂ5ೆ ಎಂ.ಆ. ಾಖಸು4ಾಗ 6ೈತ8 9ಂದ ಎಂ.ಆ. ಾಖ ೆ :ಾಡು4ಾಗ ಸ.ನಂ 37/1 ರ ಖು¶Ì 01ೕಣ3 1ಎ-36 ಗುಂ+ೆ ;ೈ< 1-00 ಎಕ=ೆ ಎಂದು ಾಖ ಾ>ಾ ಮು,+ೇಷ" ಾಖ ೆ ಅಂೕಕದಂ5ೆ Bಾ5ೆ ಾಖ ಾ EgÀĪÀÅzÁVzÉ. ೕ ಲZÁäಾAiÀÄÌ !" *ೕ+ಾ,ಾಯ( ರವರು ;ೌ>ಾದ Dೕ=ೆ.ೆ ಇವgÀ ಮಗ ೕ 6ಾEಾಾಯ( !" ಲZÁäಾAiÀÄÌ ರವ.ೆ ಎಂ.ಆ.ನಂ 4/2001-02 ರಂ5ೆ ;ೌ Bಾ5ೆ ಬದ ಾವFೆ>ಾದಂ5ೆ ಸ.ನಂ 37/1ಎ ರ 01ೕಣ3 1-00 ಎಕ=ೆ Bಾ5ೆ ಪಹH ಾಖ ಾ ಇರುವI ಾ ೆ. D £ÀAvÀgÀ CgÀ½ÃPÉÆ¥Àà UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA. 37/1J gÀ°è J.r.J¯ï.Dgï.JA.¦ 176/2002-03 l.PÀÆå.JA.¦ 292/2002-03 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27918 WP No. 45865 of 2019 ¢£ÁAPÀ:- 19.01.2004 gÀ°è agÁ¹ÛAiÀÄAvÉ ¸À.£ÀA. 37/1ಎ1 gÀ ಎ. ವಕು:ಾ !" ರುದಪ ರವ.ೆ 0-04 ಗುಂ+ೆ 6ಾEಾಾಯ( !" ಲZÁäಾAiÀÄÌ ರವ.ೆ 0-17 ಗುಂ+ೆ ಸ.ನಂ 37/1ಎ2 ರ 6ಾEಾಾಯ( !" ಲZÁäಾAiÀÄÌ ರವ.ೆ 01ೕಣ3 0-23 ಗುಂ+ೆ ದುರ1ಯಂ5ೆ Bಾ5ೆ ಪಹH ಾಖ ಾ ಇರುವI ಾ ೆ. ಆದJಂದ ಎಂ.ಆ.ನಂ 6/68-69 ರ ಎಂ.ಆ. ಾಖ ೆಯನುK ರದುJಪL ಕಯಪvÀæzÀAvÉ Mಾ ಕಯ ಾರರ ಮಗಾದ 6ಾEಾಾಯ( !" ಲZÁäಾAiÀÄÌ ರವ.ೆ 01ೕಣ3 0-23 ಗುಂ+ೆ ಉO ಉO6ೆ 01ೕಣ3 0-17 ಗುಂ+ೆಯನುK ಅ3 ಾರರ ತಂ ೆ>ಾದ ಎ., ರುದಪ !" ಪ+ೇP ಗುರುಬಸಪ ರವರು ಾಂಕ:- 5-09-1984 ರಂದು ಮರಣ MೊಂರುವIದಂದ ಇವರ ಮಗಾದ ೕ ಎ. ವಕು:ಾ !" ಎ. ರುದಪ ರವ.ೆ Bಾ5ೆ :ಾಡಲು ಆ ೇಶ 6ೋ ಕಡತ ೊಂ.ೆ ಪSಾ1ವೆ ಸ ೆ." 7. Though the Tahsildar passed an order as evidenced at Annexure-E, he did not take further steps to rectify the extent of land in the relevant survey records. This inaction compelled the petitioners to prefer an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, which is evidenced at Annexure-J. The Assistant Commissioner, upon consideration of the material on record, allowed the appeal and set aside the mutation entries bearing MR Nos. 6/68- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27918 WP No. 45865 of 2019 69, 4/2001-02, and 8/2003-04. The Assistant Commissioner further directed rectification of the entries in the RTC by recording the extent of 17 guntas and mutating 21 guntas in favour of M.G. Shivakumar. The operative portion of the said order is relevant for the present case and is accordingly extracted below: "DೕಲTನ0 ಾರರ DೕಲTನ0ಯನುK ಪIರಸ( ಆ ೇ ೆ. ಎಂ.ಆ ನಂಬ 6/68-69, 04/2001-02, Mಾಗೂ 08/2003-2004 ಮೂರು ಎಂ.ಆ ಗಳನುK ರದುJಪL, ಸ.ನಂ. 37/1ಎ1 ರ 6ಾಳಾಯ( !" ಲZÁäಾAiÀÄÌ ಇವರ Bಾ5ೆಯರುವ 00ಎ 17ಗು 01ೕಣ3ವನುK ರದುJಪL, ಎ..ವಕು:ಾ !" ರುದಪ ಇವ.ೆ 00ಎ 21ಗು ಎಂದು ಪಹHಯ ಇಂLಕಸಲು ಆ ೇ ೆ. 0ಷಯ 94ಾ3ಹಕ.ೆ ಉತ1 ೇಖನ 9ೕL VೆರಳಚುX :ಾLದ ಆ ೇಶವನುK ಓ ದುJಪL :ಾL ಾಂಕ: 25-01-2019 ರಂದು 5ೆ=ೆದ ಾ,>ಾಲಯದ YೂೕZ ೆ. ¸À»/- G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁj, ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ" 8. Along with the rejoinder, the petitioners have produced a copy of the order passed by the Deputy - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27918 WP No. 45865 of 2019 Commissioner while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The said revision was preferred by one Kalyanaik, son of Lachmanaik, in whose favour the petitioners’ father had alienated 23 guntas of land. The revision petition filed by Kalyanaik was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 22.03.2021. 9. Upon a careful examination of the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner, and Deputy Commissioner, it is clearly evident that the petitioners’ ancestor, A.G. Rudrappa, had retained 21 guntas of land in Sy. No. 37/1. This factual conclusion finds further support in the report submitted by the Deputy Director of Land Records, which is placed on record at Annexure-AA. In view of its relevance to the controversy at hand, this Court considers it appropriate to extract the pertinent observations made by the Deputy Director of Land Records. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27918 WP No. 45865 of 2019 "ಅ3 ಾರರು ಸದ ಾಖ ೆಗಳನುK, ಪಹH ಮು,+ೇಷ" ಗಳನುK, ಸ.ನಂ.37/1ರ [ೕ\ಾದ 1ಎ, 1!, 1ಎ1, 1ಎ2 ಮತು1 1ಎ2 ರ [ೕ\ಾದ ಾಖ ೆಗಳನುK ಕೂಲಂಕುಶ4ಾ ಪೕದಂ5ೆ ಸ.ನಂ.37/1ರ 04-16ಎಕ=ೆ ಇದುJ, ಸದ ಜ*ೕನು 4ಾಗಳ ಪ^ವ3ಜ=ಾದ ಎ..ರುದಪ ಪ+ೇಲರ ಜ*ೕನು ಆದುJ. ಸದ ರುದಪ ಪ+ೇಲರು ಸ.ನಂ.37/1ರ 04-16 ಎಕ=ೆ ;ೈ< 02-20 ಎಕ=ೆ ಜ*ೕನನುK 1950-51ೇ Sಾನ ಭೂಪವತ3ೆ :ಾL6ೊಂLರು5ಾ1=ೆ. ಅದರಂ5ೆ ಸ.ನಂ.37/1ರ ಪಹHಯಂ5ೆ 04-16ಎಕ=ೆ ಈ ;ೈ< 02-20ಎಕ=ೆ ಖ=ಾಬು (ಭೂಪವತ3ೆ>ಾದ ಪ ೇಶ) ಉO6ೆ Sಾಗು 01-36ಎಕ=ೆ ಇರುತ1 ೆ. ಸದ ಎ. ರುದಪ ಪ+ೇಲರು ಅವರ ೕವತ6ಾಲದ ಸ.ನಂ.37/1ರ ಭೂಪವತ3ೆ :ಾL ಉOದ 01-36ಎಕ=ೆ ;ೈ< 00-32ಗುಂ+ೆಯನುK .ೊ0ಂದಪ ಎಂಬುವವಗೂ, 00-23ಗುಂ+ೆ 01ೕಣ3ವನುK ಲಚಮಾಯ( ಎಂಬುವವ.ೆ :ಾ=ಾಟ :ಾLದುJ, ಉO6ೆ 00-21ಗುಂ+ೆ ಎ. ರುದುಪ ಪ+ೇP ;ೌ4ಾರಸು Dೕ=ೆ.ೆ 4ಾಗಳ Mೆಸ.ೆ ಹಕು( ಾಖ ೆ>ಾರುತ1 ೆ. ಸ.ನಂ.37/1ರ [ೕL :ಾL 1ಎ, 1! ಎಂದೂ [ೕL :ಾL ಈ 6ೆಳನಂ5ೆ ದುರಸು1 ಪLಸ ಾರುತ1 ೆ." 10. The petitioners have also produced a sketch, which corresponds with the sketch prepared by the authorities, placed on record at Annexure-R. A closer examination of the rough sketch of Sy. No. 37/1 clearly indicates that the northern portion, measuring 21 guntas, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27918 WP No. 45865 of 2019 is retained by the petitioners’ family. Immediately to the south of this retained portion lies the land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas, which was acquired by the erstwhile Government of Mysore. Further south of the acquired land is the 23 guntas sold by A.G. Rudrappa to Lachmanayaka. Adjacent and to the south of the said 23 guntas lies the land measuring 32 guntas sold to Govindappa. 11. A perusal of the sketch reveals that the portions sold by Rudrappa are situated on the extreme southern side of Sy. No. 37/1 and do not share a common boundary with the 21 guntas retained by the petitioners’ family. The retained 21 guntas is separated from the 23 guntas sold to Lachmanayaka by an intervening strip of 2 acres 20 guntas acquired by the Government. 12. In this background, if the impugned orders passed by the Grama Panchayath and affirmed by the Taluk Panchayath are carefully examined, it is evident that - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27918 WP No. 45865 of 2019 the order at Annexure-P is cryptic and has been passed without jurisdiction. 13. The Grama Panchayath, in the absence of any comprehensive survey of the entire extent of land, has summarily concluded that the petitioners have encroached upon the 2 acres 20 guntas acquired by the Government. Annexure-P does not refer to any survey undertaken by competent authorities, nor does it disclose any details regarding the extent of alleged encroachment. In the absence of such material, the impugned order at Annexure-P, as well as the order of confirmation by the Taluk Panchayath, are unsustainable and liable to be quashed. Unless the Grama Panchayath or any competent authority is able to establish, through due process, that the petitioners have encroached upon the Government land, no coercive or precipitative action can be justified. 14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27918 WP No. 45865 of 2019 ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 27.11.2018 passed by respondent No.4, as per Annexure-A, and the notice dated 21.03.2019 issued by respondent No.5, as per Annexure-P, are hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) Respondent No.6 – Assistant Director of Land Records is directed to take note of the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner, and Deputy Commissioner, which clearly indicate that the petitioners’ family has retained 21 guntas in Sy. No. 37/1, while 2 acres 20 guntas were acquired by the State, and two alienations were made by Rudrappa. (iv) A fresh phodi and durasti shall be conducted by respondent No.6 in accordance with law, by considering the aforesaid findings and after affording opportunity to all stakeholders. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37