- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52790 WP No. 56359 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 56359 OF 2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. LAKSHMANA S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT GOOLYANANDIGUNDA VILLAGE TOOBAGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN-561 203 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B. RAMESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU, PIN-560 001 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN-560 001 Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52790 WP No. 56359 of 2018 4. THE TAHASILDAR DODDABALLAPURA TALUK DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN-561 203 5. SMT KEMPAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT GOOLIYANANDIGUNDA VILLAGE TOOBAGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN-561 203 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 R5 - SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, IN REV.P.NO.115/2017-18 AND RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA, IN RA (DBP) NO.213/16-17 AND RECORDS FROM R-3/TAHASILDAR, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, IN RRT:CR:416/2016-17. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52790 WP No. 56359 of 2018 ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-'A' and respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-'B'. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the land bearing Sy.No.7 measuring 6 acres 4 guntas of Goolyanandigunda Village originally belongs to one Hosabara Hanumanthappa, who is the great grandfather of the petitioner and there was an oral partition in the family of the said Hosabara Hanumanthappa and in the said partition, 2 acres 5 guntas was allotted in favour of one Sanjeevappa and the said Hosabara Hanumanthappa was in possession and enjoyment of the remaining portion. After the demise of said Hosabara Hanumanthappa, his daughter namely Achamma and his grandson - Krishnappa were succeeded to the estate and they were in possession and enjoyment of same. Subsequently, after the death of Achamma and Krishnappa, respondent No.5 being the wife of Krishnappa, succeeded to the estate and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52790 WP No. 56359 of 2018 RTC/pahani entries were entered in her name and she was in possession and enjoyment of the same. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that Sy.No.7 totally measures 6 acres 4 guntas, out of which, 1 acre 34 guntas was shown as kharab as per akarbandh and as per the RTC entries, earlier the names of Achamma, Krishnappa and Anninappa the grandson of late Sanjeevappa were entered in respect of 2 acres 5 guntas. Subsequently, the revision work was conducted in Sy.No.7 and as per the revision work, measurements were revised in the said survey number and Hiduvali land was shown as 5 acres 3 guntas and kharab is reduced to 1 acre 5 guntas. Accordingly, the revenue entries were entered in the name of respondent No.5 in respect of Sy.No.7 measuring 2 acres 38 guntas. Later, respondent No.5 sold 2 acres 5 guntas, out of 2 acres 38 guntas, to one Oberaoi vide Sale Deed dated 23.11.1998 by retaining 33 guntas. Further, respondent No.5 executed the registered Gift Deed in favour of petitioner in respect of 33 guntas in Sy.No.7 of Goolyanandigunda Village (for brevity "the subject land") vide Gift Deed dated 07.11.2015. In pursuance of the Gift Deed, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52790 WP No. 56359 of 2018 khata got transferred in the name of petitioner vide MR.No.H- 10/15-16. Later, new survey number was assigned to the subject land as Sy.No.7/2 (old Sy.No.7). 4. Things stood thus, on perusal of records, the petitioner learnt that respondent No.4 - Tahsildar initiated suo moto proceedings in RRT.CR.416/16-17 and noted that the Gram Panchayat had made complaint that the subject land was Gundu Thopu and on that basis, the Tahsildar initiated proceedings and submitted a report to the Assistant Commissioner to cancel the entries in the name of the petitioner and to take possession of the subject land. 5. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner initiated the proceedings under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act in RA(DBP)No.213/2016-17 and passed the impugned order based on the report of the Tahsildar and entered the name of the Government in the revenue entries with respect to the subject land. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner also rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner by affirming the order passed by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52790 WP No. 56359 of 2018 Assistant Commissioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel Sri B. Ramesh, appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri Rahul Cariappa K.S., appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 7. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have failed to notice that land bearing Sy.No.7 measuring 1 acre 14 guntas is declared as Sarkari Gundu Thopu through Official Memorandum dated 20.09.2004 as per Annexure-'P' and before that, the larger extent of said land i.e., 2 acres 38 guntas was belonging to the petitioner's family, out of which, the petitioner's mother sold 2 acres 5 guntas to Oberaoi by retaining 33 guntas i.e., the subject land. Thereafter, new survey number was assigned as Sy.No.7/2 to the subject land. However, the purchaser Oberaoi, in order to shift the Gundu Thopu situated in his land i.e., Sy.No.19 to the adjacent land i.e., Sy.No.7, approached the Deputy Commissioner by submitting the representation to shift the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52790 WP No. 56359 of 2018 Gundu Thopu to Sy.No.7/1 (old survey number) portion of the said land. Accordingly, the said exercise has been approved by the Deputy Commissioner and Sy.No.7/1 measuring 1 acre 14 guntas was reserved as Gundu Thopu. According to the learned counsel, the subject land is nowhere connected to the said exercise of shifting the Gundu Thopu and the subject land in Sy.No.7/2 was very much retained by the petitioner's mother, which is a patta land. These aspects of the matter were not considered by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner and without conducting necessary enquiry, they passed the impugned orders. Accordingly, he prays to allow the writ petition by quashing the impugned orders. 8. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the Assistant Commissioner has passed the impugned order based on the report submitted by the Tahsildar, who initiated the suo moto proceedings based on the complaint by the villagers and the Gram Panchayat. In such circumstance, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have rightly passed the impugned orders which - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52790 WP No. 56359 of 2018 do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents made available before me including the impugned orders. 10. As could be gathered from records, the subject land is the portion of land bearing Sy.No.7 situated at Goolanandigunda Village carved out of 2 acres 38 guntas. Undisputedly, the petitioner's mother sold 2 acres 5 guntas of Sy.No.7 to Oberaoi in the year 1998 by retaining 33 guntas i.e., the subject land. Thereafter, all the revenue entries were mutated in the name of the petitioner's mother and subsequently, in the name of the petitioner in respect of subject land by virtue of the Gift Deed. It is also not in dispute that, later new survey number was assigned in respect of subject land as Sy.No.7/2. Further, as could be gathered from records i.e., Official Memorandum dated 20.09.2004 at Annexure-'P', Oberaoi who is the purchaser of 2 acres 5 guntas of land from the mother of the petitioner has approached the Deputy Commissioner for shifting of Gundu Thopu situated in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52790 WP No. 56359 of 2018 his land i.e., Sy.No.19 to Sy.No.7/1 measuring 1 acres 14 guntas. The said exercise has been approved by the Deputy Commissioner and other revenue authorities and accordingly, the order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-'P'. Thereafter, it was ordered to enter the name of Government in respect of land measuring 1 acre 14 guntas in Sy.No.7 and later, re-numbered as Sy.No.7/1. However, in Annexure-'P', there is no mention of the petitioner land i.e., subject land in Sy.No.7/2. In such circumstance, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner without conducting any such enquiry, passed the impugned orders in respect of subject land by directing the Tahsildar to enter the name of the Government and to take possession of the subject land. 11. Nonetheless, the petitioner was not notified before the Assistant Commissioner while passing the impugned order. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the matter requires re-consideration at the hands of respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner by extending sufficient - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52790 WP No. 56359 of 2018 opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his claim by placing relevant documents. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is allowed. ii. The impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-'A', respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-'B' are quashed. iii. The matter is remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-Division, Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural District for fresh consideration by extending sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case by placing relevant documents at the earliest. iv. It is made clear that, till such time, the parties shall maintain status quo with respect to the subject land. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20