- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42520-DB WA No. 256 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 256 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR BEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-II, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, 2ND FLOOR, BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVANA K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, KANDHAYA BHAVANA, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, AGA) AND: 1. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA W/O LATE VENKATACHAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42520-DB WA No. 256 of 2025 2. SRL. CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O.LATE VENKATACHAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 3. SMT. SAVITHA, D/O LATE VENKATACHAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.81, H. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 060. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2024 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No.6560/2024 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE ONLY IN SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE OBSERVATION/DIRECTION ISSUED AT PARAGRAPH No. 2 AND 3 OF THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ORDER. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42520-DB WA No. 256 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) The State has preferred this intra Court appeal challenging the order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6560/2024, whereby the learned Single Judge passed the following order: "(i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned enquiry notice dated 8.1.2024 is hereby quashed. (iii) This Court hereby directs the State Government to initiate an appropriate enquiry against Respondent No. 2/Deputy Commissioner, for his actions that are in blatant violation of the directives issued by this Court and for misusing his authority by attempting to re-examine the genuineness of the grant, which has already been conclusively settled by this Court. (iv) Cost of Rs.25,000/- each is imposed on respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner and respondent No.3/Tahsildar payable to petitioner. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42520-DB WA No. 256 of 2025 (v) The cost shall be paid and compliance shall be reported to the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks." 2. We have heard Smt.Namitha Mahesh B.G., learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellant- State and Sri Chokkareddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3. 3. The primary contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate is that the Special Deputy Commissioner-II, Bengaluru South Division, has issued a notice to the respondents herein under Section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for brevity, "the KLR Act") based on the report furnished to him on 26.12.2013 by the Tahsildar, to produce relevant documents pertaining to subject land. Further, the said action of the Special Deputy Commissioner-II was in compliance of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A No.1200/2023 filed by the State and also in the Contempt Petition to ascertain the grant made - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42520-DB WA No. 256 of 2025 in favour of the original grantee Lingaiah in the year 1947- 48 under grow more food scheme. 4. She further contended that, on the primary investigation of appellant Nos.2 and 3, it is revealed that land grant order in favour of the respondents was not confirmed by the Competent Authority. In such circumstance, the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to issue notice under Section 136(3) of KLR Act for an enquiry. Without appreciating these aspects of the matter, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order, which is liable to be set-aside. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order after meticulously examining the documents on record, which does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. He further contended that the husband of respondent No.1 purchased the subject land on 07.03.2012 and her husband's name was mutated in the RTC in the year 2012-13 itself. In the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42520-DB WA No. 256 of 2025 year 2014, the husband of respondent No.1 applied for phodi and durasthi of the subject land which was not considered by the concerned authority. As such, respondent No.1 and her children preferred W.P.No.7815/2021 and the same was allowed. Thereafter, though a review petition in RP.No.802/2022 was preferred by the State, the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Against which, writ appeal was preferred by the State in W.A.No.1200/2023, which was also disposed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by directing the concerned authority to consider the request of respondent No.1 for conducting phodi and durasthi. In such circumstance, since the appellant-State failed to comply with the said order and instead, issued notice impugned in the writ petition to the petitioners/respondents herein, the petitioners preferred the writ petition before the learned Singe Judge, which was rightly allowed with costs. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42520-DB WA No. 256 of 2025 6. We have carefully considered the contentions of the respective parties and perused the records produced before us, so also the order of the learned Single Judge. 7. It could be gathered from records that the subject land was granted to one Lingaiah in the year 1947-48 under Grow More Food Scheme. The grant was confirmed in the year 1961. Subsequently, the grantee sold the land in the year 1970 and later, the husband of respondent No.1 purchased the said land vide Sale Deed dated 07.03.2012. Thereafter, the RTC entries were mutated in the name of husband of respondent No.1 in the year 2012-13 and in the year 2014, he applied for conducting phodi and durasti of the subject land. Since the said request was not acceded to, respondent No.1 and her children approached this Court in WP.7815/2021, wherein the learned Single Judge directed the appellant-State to conduct phodi and durasti of the subject land. Though the said order was challenged in review petition in RP.No.802/2022, the same was dismissed and even then, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42520-DB WA No. 256 of 2025 the State preferred writ appeal in WA.No.1200/2023, which was disposed of directing the State to consider of the request of respondent No.1 and to conduct phodi and durasti of subject land. Thus, both the Courts have upheld the validity or otherwise of the grant in favour of the original grantee Lingaiah in the year 1947-48 and the confirmation Order in the year 1961. In such circumstance, by considering the aspect that the husband of respondent No.1 being the subsequent purchaser as per Sale Deed dated 07.03.2012, having right, title and interest over the subject land, the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the notice dated 08.01.2024. 8. In view of the above, we find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case, we are of the view that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the State to initiate enquiry against the Deputy Commissioner for misusing his authority as well as the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42520-DB WA No. 256 of 2025 costs imposed by the learned Single Judge are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER i) The Writ Appeal is allowed in part. ii) The order of the learned Single Judge in respect of quashing the enquiry notice dated 08.01.2024 is affirmed. iii) The direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the State Government to initiate appropriate enquiry against the Deputy Commissioner/appellant No.2 is set aside. iv) The costs of Rs.25,000/- each imposed on the Deputy Commissioner/appellant No.2 and the Tahsildar/appellant No.3 is waived. SD/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6