- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44394 WP No. 35037 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 35037 OF 2014 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SRI NAGARAJACHARI S/O LATE NANJA CHARI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT TAGLI HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, JADAGERANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. SIDDHALINGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.V HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIOENR REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DODDABALLAPURA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560 013 3. THE TAHSILDAR/SECRETARY HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560 016 Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44394 WP No. 35037 of 2014 4. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA W/O MAHADEVACHARI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT TAGGALLI HOSAHALLI JADAGENHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 5. SIR. K. NITYANANDA S/O LATE KEMPANNA @ CHIKKA KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST NO.264, 'A' NARAYANAPURA BOGA NANDEESHWARA NILAYA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1-R3, SRI. GURURAJ KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R4, SRI. P.N. RAJESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R5, VIDE ORDER DATED 03.11.2025) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER HIS APPLICATION TO RECTIFICATION THE REDUCED EXTENT OF LAND THAT IS 1 ACRE 22 GUNTAS OUT OF 4 ACRES IN SURVEY NO.60 [OLD SURVEY NO.1/13] BY THE PETITIOENR DATED 2.3.1990, 9.8.2007 AND DATED 5.2.2013 VIDE ANN-C, C1 AND C2 AND ANN-D, D1 AND D2 DATED 6.1.2014, 10.7.2014 RESPECTIVELY. 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:44394 WP No. 35037 of 2014 ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to respondent No.3 – Tahsildar to consider the representations of the petitioner at Annexures-C, C1, C2, D, D1 and D2 in respect of rectification of reduced extent of land. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that 4 acres of land in Sy.No.60 (Old Sy.No.1/13) situated at Thiruthally, Hoskote Taluk Bengaluru Rural was granted to his father in darkhast for upset price and thereafter, his father sold the said land to one Ramaiah, who, in turn, reconveyed it to petitioner’s father under registered Sale Deed dated 19.05.1971. Thereafter, petitioner’s father filed suit in OS.No.382/1981 for declaration and permanent injunction against Ramaiah, which came to be decreed in favour of petitioner’s father. Even the appeals filed against the said decree were dismissed. As such, petitioner’s father became absolute owner of 4 acres of land. However, while conducting phodi in the year 1984-85, the extent of land - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44394 WP No. 35037 of 2014 i.e., 4 acres was reduced to 1 acre 22 guntas and changed the survey number as Sy.No.60 instead of Sy.No.1/13. Seeking rectification of the same, petitioner’s father and the petitioner submitted the aforesaid representations. Since the same were not considered, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The impleading applicant-respondent No.5, however, opposed the prayer on the ground that Sy.No.1/8 and 1/13 is one and the same and that one Ramaiah sold 2 acres 22 guntas out of 4 acres in favour of Anil Kumar Dongarwal vide Sale Deed dated 24.05.2006 and said Anil Kumar Dongarwal sold the same in favour of Kempanna i.e., the father of respondent No.5 vide Sale Deed dated 08.06.2007. As such, father of respondent No.5 is the absolute owner of 2 acres 22 guntas in Sy.No.1/8 and respondent No.5 is in possession of said property. Despite, knowing fully, petitioner claiming to be the owner of said property made representations for rectification of reduced - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44394 WP No. 35037 of 2014 extent of land i.e., 1 acre 22 guntas out of 4 acres in Sy.No.60 (old Sy.No.1/13). 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the documents placed before me, I am of the considered view that respondent No.3 – Tahsildar is the authority to consider whether Sy.No.1/8 and 1/13 is one and the same. As such, a writ of mandamus is issued to respondent No.3 - Tahsildar to consider the representations of petitioners Annexures-C, C1, C2, D, D1 and D2 in respect of rectification of reduced extent of land in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. However, respondent No.5 is at liberty to file/place all the necessary documents including Sale Deeds and other documents to substantiate his contentions with regard to his title in the subject land. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44394 WP No. 35037 of 2014 6. It is needless to say that the Tahsildar shall consider the aforesaid representations of the petitioner after hearing both the petitioner and respondent No.5 herein. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35