- 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 814 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO. 1559 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) In WA No.814/2023: BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNOR SECRETARIAT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY RAJ BHAVAN ROAD RAJ BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SRI. RAMANJANAPPA S/O LATE MUNIAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 2 . SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MUNIAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 3 . SRI. NARAYANASWAMY (SINCE DECEASED ON 07.08.2023) - 2 REP. BY HIS LRS 3(a). SMT. VIJAYA KUMARI W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 3(b). SRI. MANJUNATH N. S/O LATE NARAYANA SWAMY M. AGED MAJOR 3(c). SMT.JAYALAKSHMI.N D/O LATE NARAYANA SWAMY AGED MAJOR R/AT No.32, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI ITTAGALIPURA RAJANAKUNTE POST BENGALURU-560 064 3(d). SMT. ARUNA KUMARI D/O LATE NARAYANA SWAMY M. AGED MAJOR R/AT No.32, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI ITTAGALIPURA RAJANAKUNTE POST BENGALURU-560 064 4 . SRI. CHANNAPPA S/O LATE MUNIAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 5 . SMT. SOWBHAGYA D/O LATE MUNIAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 6 . SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MUNIAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESPONDENTS No.1, 2, 4 TO 6 ARE R/O ITAGALPURA VILLAGE RAJANAKUNTE POST - 3 HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560 088 7 . STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 8 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 001 9 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU-560 009 10 . THE TAHSILDAR YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU-560 064 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R3(a-d) & R4 TO R6; SRI. KIRAN V. RON, AAG A/W. SMT. SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R7 TO R10) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO (a) CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE CASE W.P.No.16001/2021 (KLR-RES) AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THAT PART OF THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2023 WHICH MAKES THE GRANT IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY SUBJECT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE WRIT PETITIONERS TO THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. In WA NO 1559 OF 2023: BETWEEN: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY - 4 GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 009 3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN, 2ND FLOOR K.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 009 4 . THE TAHSILDAR YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU-560 009 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. KIRAN V. RON, AAG A/W. SMT. SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA) AND: 1 . SRI. RAMANJANAPPA S/O LATE MUNIAPPA AGED 74 YEARS RESIDING AT ITAGALPURA VILLAGE RAJANAKUNTE POST HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 009 2 . SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MUNIAPPA AGED 63 YEARS RESIDING AT ITAGALPURA VILLAGE RAJANAKUNTE POST HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 5 BENGALURU-560 009 3 . SRI. NARAYANASWAMY (SINCE DECEASED ON 07.08.2023) REP. BY HIS LRS., 3(a). SMT. VIJAYA KUMARI W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT. MADHUR MAIN ROAD ITTAGALIPURA VILLAGE RAJANAKUNTE POST HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU-560 064 3(b). SRI. MANJUNATH N. S/O LATE NARAYANASWMAY M. AGED MAJOR R/AT. MADHUR MAIN ROAD VTC, ITTAGALIPURA RAJANAKUNTE POST BENGALURU-560 064 3(c). SMT. JAYALAKSHMI N. D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY M. AGED MAJOR R/AT No.32, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI ITTAGALIPURA RAJANAKUNTE POST BENGALURU-560 064 3(d). SMT. ARUNA KUMARI D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY M. AGED MAJOR R/AT No.32, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI ITTAGALIPURA RAJANAKUNTE POST BENGALURU-560 064 4 . SRI. CHANNAPPA S/O LATE MUNIAPPA AGED 60 YEARS - 6 RESIDING AT ITAGALPURA VILLAGE RAJANAKUNTE POST HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 064 5 . SMT. SOWBHAGYA W/O SRI. RAMANJANAPPA AGED 62 YEARS RESIDING AT ITAGALPURA VILLAGE RAJANAKUNTE POST HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 064 6 . SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MUNIAPPA AGED 63 YEARS RESIDING AT ITAGALPURA VILLAGE RAJANAKUNTE POST HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 064 7 . THE KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNOR SECRETARIAT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, RAJ BHAVAN BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/ PRESIDENT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R3(a-d), & R4 TO R6 SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VIVEK HOLLA, ADV., FOR R7) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2023 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No.16001/2021 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION WITH EXEMPLARY COST. - 7 THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 18.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) Both these appeals are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.02.2023 in Writ Petition No.16001/2021 (KLR-RES). 2. We have heard Shri. Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Vivek Holla, learned counsel appearing for the Karnataka State Governor Secretariat Employees House Building Co-operative Society. Shri. Kiran V Ron, learned Additional Advocate General along with Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Shri. Vivekananda T.P, learned counsel appearing for other respondents. - 8 3. Writ Appeal No.814/2023 is filed by the Karnataka State Governor Secretariat Employees House Building Co-Operative Society. The contention in the said appeal is only that the fourth direction issued by the learned Single Judge making the order of grant made in favour of the appellant- Society dated 06.12.2019 and 28.02.2020 dependent on the satisfaction of the petitioners with the orders to be passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-Society submitted that the learned Single Judge had clearly found that even if the 4 acres of land which is granted in favour of respondent No.5 - Society is not disturbed there is another extent of 7 acres 36 guntas of land available for regularization in favour of the petitioners. It is submitted that once having found that there are other lands available for granting to the petitioners in the very same survey number and further having found that the grants made in favour of the Society were legal and valid, the learned Single Judge ought not to have made such an observation in the direction portion of the order. - 9 5. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel has relied on the following citations:- • Yunus (Baboobhai) A. Hamid Padvekar v. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary and Others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 281; • State of Maharashtra v. Digambar reported in (1995) 4 SCC 683; • Srinivas Bhat (dead) by LRs. and Others v. A. Sarvothama Kini (dead) by LRs. and Others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 523; and • Shankara Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. M. Prabhakar and Others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 607. 6. Writ Appeal No.1559/2023 is filed by the Government stating that the applications preferred by the petitioners are liable to be considered on their merits and that in case the said applications can be allowed in terms of the Act and the Rules, the same can be granted. However, it is contended that the positive direction issued by the learned Single Judge that the applications of the petitioners must be allowed and that the grant made by the Government in favour of the Society would be dependent on the satisfaction of the petitioners with the orders to be passed on their applications is unsustainable. - 10 7. It is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants/State in Writ Appeal No.1559/2023 that the applications for grant preferred by the petitioners will be taken up and decided on their merits but the direction that the grant is positively to be made in favour of the petitioners cannot be accepted under any circumstances. 8. In support of his contentions, the learned Additional Advocate General has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj and Another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81. 9. We have considered the contentions advanced. It is an admitted position that the total extent of land in Survey No.50 of Itkalpura Viillage, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk was 75 acres and 11 guntas. 41 acres and 17 guntas of the land have been granted either under the Land Grant Rules or under Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, regularizing unauthorized occupation. 13 acres were declared as deemed - 11 forest, 6 acres and 28 guntas were reserved for Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited, while 2 acres were utilized for formation of public roads and 20 guntas were granted for putting up of a Government School. 10. The learned Single Judge accepted the contention of the writ petitioners that since 41 acres and 17 guntas of land in the very same Survey number were either granted under the Land Grant Rules or regularized by the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation would go to show that when the applications were filed by the petitioners, the lands were not within the prohibited distance from the boundary of the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. 11. The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that a wrong grant made in favour of some other persons cannot accrued to the benefit of the appellants and they would have to independently satisfy the conditions for the grant at the relevant time. 12. We notice that the State had no contention before the learned Single Judge that there was any error in the - 12 grants made in favour of similarly situated persons from the very same Survey number. Even in the appeal preferred before this Court no such contention is raised with regard to the grants admittedly made under Section 94-A from the very same Survey number. Moreover, the materials on record clearly show that at the time when the grants were made, there were clear reports which unequivocally recorded that the property was outside the distance of 18 kms, from the limits of Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike which was the norms to be followed for grant of land at that relevant time. It is specifically considering these facts that the learned Single Judge had held that when the question of grant of land to the writ petitioners is taken up the contention with regard to distance from BBMP limits shall not be raised to defeat their claims. 13. It is an admitted fact that the State has made the grants in favour of several individuals as also to respondent No.5/Co-operative Society, who is the appellant in Writ Appeal No.814/2023 out of the property comprised in the very same Survey number. The State also does not deny the - 13 fact that grants under Section 94-A have also been effective from the property under the very same Survey number. Moreover, the Government, while upholding the grant to the Society cannot raise the contentions of distance against the writ petitioners. 14. In the above factual situation, we are of the opinion that the contentions raised in the appeals that the application for grant has to be considered in accordance with the Rules and the Circulars which are now in force cannot be accepted under any circumstances. 15. We find no merit in the Writ Appeal No.1559/2023 preferred by the State. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. 16. In Writ Appeal No.814/2023, we find that the grant in favour of the Society was made on the directions of the Government being satisfied by the eligibility of the Society, after verifying the distance from the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and was not subject to any challenge except by the petitioners who put up an alternative claim. - 14 The learned Single Judge also did not find any infirmity in the grant made to the Society. After finding that there is land available in the same survey number to grant in favour of the writ petitioners and after directing such grant, the learned Single Judge was not justified in making upholding of the grant in favour of the Society conditional on the grant to the writ petitioners. 17. The Writ Appeal No.814/2023 is therefore disposed of upholding the grant in favour of the Society and modifying direction (iv) in the impugned judgment, accordingly. All pending interlocutory applications in both appeals shall stand dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE cp*