- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50574 WP NO.24345 OF 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.24345 OF 2015 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI N.SHIVALINGAIAH S/O LATE S.NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 157. 2. SRI. SHIVARUDRAPPA L. S/O LINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI, SHIVAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL - 561 203. 3. SRI. SADASHIVAYYA K. S/O KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI, SHIVAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL - 561 203. 4. SRI. VIRUPAKSHAPPA S/O NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI, SHIVAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL - 561 203. 5. SRI. . GURUSHANTHAPPA S/O NANJAPPA, Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50574 WP NO.24345 OF 2015 AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.80/5, 6TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, SRS ROAD, BENGALURU NORTH, PEENYA SMALL INDUSTRIES, BENGALURU - 560 058. 6. SRI. S.K. LINGAMURTHY C/O G. KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.25, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK , KASABA HOBLI,, SONNAPPANAHALLI,, SHIVAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL - 561 203. 7. SRI. SOMALINGAIAH S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.13, T.B. CIRCLE, T.V. NARAYANAPPA EXTENSION, DODDABALLAPUR, BENGALURU RURAL - 561 203. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. LOHITHASWA BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VISHALARAGHU H.L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MULTI-STORIED BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU -560 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 203. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50574 WP NO.24345 OF 2015 4. THE TAHSILDAR DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 203. 5. THE PLANNING OFFICER DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT KOSHA, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PODIUM BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 001. 6. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 203. 7. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KONAGHATTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KONAGHATTA, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK - 561 204. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. GURUPRASAD B.R., ADVOCATE FOR R6; SRI. MURALI B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 10TH APRIL, 2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 20TH OCTOBER, 1997 AND 05TH JANUARY, 1998 VIDE ANNEXURES 'E' AND 'F' RESPECTIVELY FOR GRANT OF SANAD RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF LAND IN QUESTION IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS; AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50574 WP NO.24345 OF 2015 ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the Official Memorandum dated 10th April, 2015 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent No.2; inter alia sought for direction to the respondents 2 and 4 to consider the representations dated 20th October, 1997 (Annexure-E) and 05th January, 1998 (Annexure-F) for grant of Sanad rights in respect of the land in question in favour of petitioners. 2. Heard Sri. Lohithaswa Banakar, learned counsel on behalf of Sri. Vishalaraghu H.L., appearing for petitioners; Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 5; Sri. Guruprasad B.R., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 and Sri. Murali B.S., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7. 3. Sri. Lohithaswa Banakar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that the land bearing Survey No.53 of Sonnappanahalli, Doddaballapur Taluk to an extent of 5 acres was granted to the ancestors of the petitioners as a grant of Sanad rights on 02nd February, 1952 and pursuant to the same, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50574 WP NO.24345 OF 2015 the grandfather of the petitioners planted the Trees in the land in question. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners further contended that the grandfather of the petitioners executed indemnity bond as per Section 102A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (for short, hereinafter referred to as '1966-Rules') and the petitioners are in the possession of the schedule property and paying tax to the competent authorities. 4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that the respondent No.2 had recommended the respondent No.4 for grant of land in favour of petitioners and pursuant to the same, the respondent No.4 passed the order in proceedings bearing No.LND/334/95-96, granting land to the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners are in possession of the land in question. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court to quash the impugned Official Memorandum dated 10th April, 2015 (Annexure-A), wherein the respondent No.2 cancelled the sanad rights granted in favour of the grandfather of petitioners and reserved the same for 'Ashraya Scheme' aimed for distribution of Sites to the financially weaker section. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50574 WP NO.24345 OF 2015 5. Per contra, Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the land in question belonged to the Government and only the Sanad rights have been granted in favour of the grandfather of petitioners for planting of trees. He further submits that, there is no order of grant made in favour of the petitioners by the competent authority. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. Sri. Guruprasad B.R., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 and Sri. Murali B.S., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 argued that the claim made by the petitioners is based on the bogus certificates and therefore, no interference be called for in this writ petition. 7. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful consideration of writ papers, the same would indicate that, as per Annexure-B, the land in question was granted to the grandfather of the petitioners under Rule 102A of the Rules-1966 for the purpose of planting of trees on Government Land. It is also to be noted that the petitioners are having a limited right to grow the plants - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50574 WP NO.24345 OF 2015 in the land in question and has no claim insofar as the ownership is concerned. In that view of the matter, since, the land has been allotted to the grandfather of petitioners for limited purpose to grow the trees and the petitioners have not produced any relevant documents as to the grant made by the competent authority under the relevant Act/Rules, no interference be called for in this petition. 8. Therefore, taking into consideration the land being allotted for construction of houses for houseless persons under the 'Ashraya Scheme' as per the Official Memorandum dated 10th April, 2015 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent No.2, I am of the view that no interference be called for in this writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53