- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47318 WP No. 57338 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 57338 OF 2016 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. S. BHARATH S/O. S. VIDYASAGAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.81/41, 14TH CROSS, 15TH MAIN ROAD, PADMANABHANAGARA, BANGALORE-560 070. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. T SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, SIR M VISWESHWARAIAH TOWER, PODIUM BLOCK, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS D.C. OFFICE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560 001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47318 WP No. 57338 of 2016 4. SMT. MUNITHIMMAKKA W/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 5. SRI. NAGARAJA S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 6. SRI. MANJUNATHA S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT RAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. 7. SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O. MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, GADIGAVARAHALLI VILLAGE, GOLLAHALLI POST, CHILAKALANERPU HOBLI, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 123. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1-3, SRI. BYREGOWDA N. ADVOCATE FOR R4-6, R7-SERVED, UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OF THE ORDER DTD.28.3.2013 ONE PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEX- K TO THE W.P. WHICH WAS AFFIRMED BY THE R-1 DTD.27.9.2016 IN G.R.P.NO.19/2013-14 VIDE ANNEX-L. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47318 WP No. 57338 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CAV ORDER 1. The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 28.03.2013 passed in Appeal Nos.9/2012-13 and 47/2012-13 by respondent No.2 - Assistant Director of Land Records (ADLR) vide Annexure-K, which was affirmed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner in G.R.P.No.19/2013-14 dated 27.09.2016 vide Annexure-L. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.150 (old Sy.No.63/P51) measuring 1 acre 20 guntas and land bearing Sy.No.152 (old Sy.No.63/P51) measuring 1 acre 17 guntas, situated at Jonnahalli village, Chennarayapatna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District (for brevity, "subject lands") by virtue of two separate registered Sale Deeds, both dated 08.07.2014 executed by respondent No.7 - Krishnappa in his favour. During the pendency of a Revision Petition in R.P No.19/2013-14 filed by respondent No.7 against respondent Nos. 2 to 6 herein before the Deputy Commissioner, the subject lands were purchased by the petitioner. In the said Revision Petition, respondent No.7 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47318 WP No. 57338 of 2016 had challenged the order dated 28.03.2013 passed by the ADLR, wherein the ADLR has allowed the appeal filed by respondent Nos.4 to 6 and set aside the hissa, phodi and durasth conducted in Sy.No.63 of Jonnahalli Village, Devanahalli Taluk by respondent No.3 -Tahsildar dated 08.07.2007 and 09.07.2007 assigning resurvey Nos.150 and 152 for the lands of respondent No.7. The Deputy Commissioner has rejected said revision petition confirming the order of the ADLR. 3. The petitioner having purchased the subject lands from respondent No.7, filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as aforesaid. 4. Heard Sri T.Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Neelakantappa K.Pujar, learned HCGP for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Byregowda N., learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6. 5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.3 - Tahsildar conducted the hissa, phodi and durasth of subject lands after issuing notice to all the hissadhars including Muniyappa i.e., husband of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47318 WP No. 57338 of 2016 respondent No.4 and father of respondent Nos.5 and 6 and thereafter assigned re-survey Nos.150 and 152 for subject lands. The Tahsildar also issued re-survey No.151 to the property of Muniyappa. The said order was challenged by respondent Nos.4 to 6 after lapse of five years, though the limitation prescribed is 60 days under Section 51 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. 6. Further, as per the settled position of law laid down by this Court in the case of DHARMOJI DEVENDRA KADABI Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER - ILR 1998 KAR 1030, the Deputy Commissioner ought not have entertained the appeal filed belatedly. 7. He also contended that respondent Nos.4 to 6 suppressed the material fact before the Deputy Commissioner in respect of order of grant dated 25.09.1994 made by the Tahsildar granting 1 acre 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.63 of Jonnahalli Village, in favour of one Muniyappa. On the contrary, they pleaded before Deputy Commissioner that Muniyappa was cultivating 2 acres 20 guntas of land in the said survey number by virtue of grant order dated 20.12.2004 and thus, Muniyapa - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47318 WP No. 57338 of 2016 was in possession of Re-Sy.No.150 and not Krishnappa. He further contended that Form No.7 issued by the Tahsildar in respect of petitioner's land clearly depicts that in Sy.No.63, there are 2 blocks each measuring 1 acre 20 guntas, totaling to 3 acres. In such circumstance, though the survey has been rightly conducted and assigned resurvey numbers i.e., Sy.No.150 and 152 holding that Krishnappa was in possession of said survey numbers, however, based on the misrepresentation of facts, the ADLR and the Deputy Commissioner have passed by impugned orders for conducting re-survey, hissa, phodi and durasti. Accordingly, he prays to quash the impugned orders and allow the writ petition. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6 contended that subject lands in Sy. No.63 of Jonnahalli Village is a gomala land. The said land was granted to one Muniyappa under two separate orders i.e., by Grant Order dated 25.09.1994 - 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy.No.63, and by Grant Order dated 20.12.2004 - 2 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.63. The Tahsildar conducted hissa, phodi, durasth on 08.07.2007 and 09.07.2007. Though the aforesaid lands were granted in favour of Muniyappa, the Tahsildar observed that Krishnappa was in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47318 WP No. 57338 of 2016 possession of Sy.No.63 and assigned Re.Sy.No.150. As such, the survey authorities committed an illegality in showing Krishnappa is in possession of resurvey No.150. 9. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6 further contended that hissa, phodi, sketch relating to property of Muniyappa do not tally with two blocks of revenue sketch, therefore, hissa, phodi and durasth conducted in respect of re- survey numbers 150 and 152 is not correct. By considering these aspects, the ADLR has rightly allowed the appeal filed by respondent Nos.4 to 6 and the same was affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner by dismissing the revision petition filed by Krishnappa-respondent No.7. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 10. Learned HCGP supports the impugned orders and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 11. As could be gathered from records, one Muniyappa i.e. husband of respondent No.4 and father of respondent Nos.5 and 6 had been granted 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy.No.63 vide Grant Order dated 25.09.1994. Thereafter, the said Muniyappa - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47318 WP No. 57338 of 2016 had been again granted 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.63 vide Grant Order dated 20.12.2004. 12. The vendor of the petitioners i.e. respondent No.7- Krishnappa was granted 1 acre 20 guntas each in Sy.No.63 vide Grant Order dated 07.09.1998. Thereafter, on 08.07.2007 and 09.07.2007 hissa, phodi and durasth were conducted in respect of subject land by the Tahsildar-respondent No.3 and assigned resurvey Nos.150 and 152 in respect of land of respondent No.7 - Krishnappa i.e. the vendor of petitioner. 13. On the same day i.e., 09.07.2007, the Tahsildar also conducted hissa, phodi and durasth in respect of land of Muniyappa and assigned resurvey No.151 with regard to 1 acre 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.63. 14. As could be seen from Saguvali Chit, in two blocks, 3 acres of land had been granted to Krishnappa. The ADLR and the Deputy Commissioner clearly observed that there is difference in respect of revenue sketch and hissa, phodi, durasth sketch of Sy.No.63 while assigning resurvey Nos.150, 151 and 152. In the Grant Order of Krishnappa-respondent No.7 and the revenue sketch, two blocks were shown - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47318 WP No. 57338 of 2016 separately and as per hissa, phodi and durasth sketch, two blocks attached to each other. In such circumstance, the ADLR cancelled the hissa, phodi and durasth conducted by the Tahsildar in respect of Sy.No.63 i.e. resurvey Nos.150 and 152 and directed to conduct resurvey by issuing notice to the concerned parties. The Deputy Commissioner also observed that since there is a dispute in respect of hissa, phodi and durasth conducted in respect of Sy.No.63 and assigning resurvey No.150 and 152 and since respondent Nos.4 to 6, who are the legal heirs of Muniyappa, claimed that they have been granted 1 acre 10 guntas in resurvey No.151, which is situated adjacent to the land of petitioner, direction of re-conducting hissa, phodi and durasth is proper. 15. On careful perusal of the order passed by the ADLR and the Deputy Commissioner, it could be gathered that the land bearing resurvey Nos.150, 151 and 152 (i.e. Old Sy. No.63) of Jonnahalli village are situated adjoining to each other and out of these lands, it is claimed that resurvey Nos.150 and 152 belongs to the petitioner and resurvey No.151 belongs to respondent Nos.4 to 6. Admittedly, there is a dispute in respect of the boundary fixed by the Tahsildar while conducting hissa, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47318 WP No. 57338 of 2016 phodi and durasth in respect of petitioner's land and as such, the said dispute has to be sort out by re-conducting hissa, phodi and durasth of all these lands by serving notice to the concerned parties. The petitioner, being the subsequent purchaser of land from respondent No.7-Krishnappa cannot claim that the land bearing resurvey No.151 is not an adjoining land to resurvey Nos.150 and 152. In such circumstance, I find no error or illegality in the orders passed by respondent No.1- Deputy Commissioner and respondent No.2-ADLR. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 1. The writ petition is dismissed. 2. The impugned orders passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner and respondent No.2 - ADLR are affirmed. 3. Respondent No.3 - Tahsildar is directed to comply with the order passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner and respondent No.2-ADLR within an outer limit of three months from the date of copy of receipt of a copy of this order. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47318 WP No. 57338 of 2016 4. Till compliance of the impugned orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the ADLR, by the Tahsildar, both the parties shall maintain status-quo with regard to possession of their respective property. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5