- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28115 WP No. 14635 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.14635 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. D. LAKSHMI RAMESH W/O. LATEG.R. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O. NO. 32, CAD-MET LAYOUT, 6TH CROSS, R.M.V. 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU -560094. 2. SHRI. CHETAN RAMESH S/O. LATE G.R. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O. NO. 32, CAD-MET LAYOUT, 6TH CROSS, R.M.V. 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU -560094. 3. UMARI. MADHU RAMESH LATE G.R. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O. NO. 32, CAD-MET LAYOUT, 6TH CROSS, R.M.V. 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU -560094. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, 1ST FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVAN, Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28115 WP No. 14635 of 2025 DISTRICT OFFICE ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, YELAHANKA TALUK, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064. 3. SHRI. MANJUNATH P., S/O. LATE SMT. HOSURAMMA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O. NO. 10, NITHYOTHSAVA NILAYA, PAKEGOWDANA PALYA, SILVEPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 090. 4. SHRI. PRAVEEN R., S/O. LATE C. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. NO. 3, BRINDAVANA NILAYA, PAKEGOWDANA PALYA, SILVEPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 090. 5. SMT. MANJULA NAGARAJ, W/O. PROFESSOR M. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, NO. 15, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, SUNDARANAGAR GOKULA POST, BENGALURU - 560 054. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI. BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. RAMESH P. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. SANGAMESH R.B., ADVOCATE FOR R5) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28115 WP No. 14635 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.03.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CASE NO. R.A.(YLK) NO.796/2024 ATTACHED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE -A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. In this Writ Petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 20.03.2025 in case No.R.A.(YLK)796/2024 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.1. 2. Sri. Nanda Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, invited the attention of the Court to the impugned order at Annexure-A and submitted that respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to invoke Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and pass orders and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 3. Per contra, Sri. Babu, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri. Ramesh P. Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No.4 sought to justify the impugned order. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28115 WP No. 14635 of 2025 4. Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2, submitted that no interference is called for in this Writ Petition. 5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful consideration of the impugned order, it is forthcoming from the Writ Petition that, respondent No.1 has invoked the jurisdiction under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the lis is to fix the boundary and to conduct survey in respect of the land in question. However, the respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to invoke suo-motu power to exercise under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Accordingly, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 20.03.2025 in case No. R.A.(YLK)796/2024 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.1 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28115 WP No. 14635 of 2025 is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.2 to take action in accordance with law with the aid of the ADLR to fix the boundary in respect of the subject land. (iii) In view of quashing the impugned order at Annexure-A, respondent No.2 is directed to maintain the revenue entries as it stood prior to the passing of the impugned order by respondent No.1. (iv) Pending applications do not survive for consideration. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1