- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28484 WP No. 38928 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.38928 OF 2025 (KLR-LG) BETWEEN: 1. CHINNASWAMY SON OF LATE DOMMAGOWDAR @DUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS RESIDING AT SANTHE BEEDHI, 2ND WARD, DOMMASANDRA VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU - 562 125. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ROOM NO. 505, 5TH FLOOR, GATE - 3, MS BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, KG ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28484 WP No. 38928 of 2025 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. THE THASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL - 562 106. 5. SMT. MEENAKSHAMMA M. WIFE OF LATE D O RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 6. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA WIFE OF LATE D O RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 7. SMT. GEETHA R. DAUGHTER OF LATE D O RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 8. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI B.R., DAUGHTER OF LATE D O RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. 9. SAMPATH B.R. SON OF LATE D O RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 10. B R SAMPATH KUMAR, SON OF LATE DO RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. 11. SMT. PREMA B R DAUGHTER OF LATE D O RAMASWAMY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28484 WP No. 38928 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 12. ROOPESH B R SON OF LATE D O RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. 13. PRATEESH B R SON OF LATE D O RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO. 5 TO 13 ARE RESIDING AT DOMMASANDRA, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.03.1999 PASSED IN LND(A) CR NO.88 OF 1994-95 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 - SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ANNX- D) AS FAR AS PETITIONER I SCONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28484 WP No. 38928 of 2025 ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner assailing the order dated 09.03.1999 (Annexure-D) passed by respondent No.2. 2. Heard Sri. Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 3. Sri. Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the impugned order dated 09.03.1999 at Annexure-D, contended that the respondent-authorities have changed the mutation entries without conducting any enquiry. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner initiated proceedings before the respondent-authorities seeking restoration of the mutation entries. It is further contended that a perusal of Annexure-D would - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28484 WP No. 38928 of 2025 indicate that the respondent-authorities were required to conduct an enquiry before taking any decision. Therefore, it is pleaded that, without conducting such enquiry, the respondents altered the mutation entries as such, he seeks interference by this Court. 4. Per contra, Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submitted that the impugned order at Annexure-D was passed about 26 years ago. He further submitted that the petitioner was well aware of the change in the revenue entries at least from the year 2015. Therefore, no sufficient cause has been made out in the writ petition for delay in questioning the same, and thereafter argued that, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28484 WP No. 38928 of 2025 5. It is further submitted by learned High Court Government Pleader that notice was issued to the petitioner, as evidenced by Annexure-E. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity was afforded to him cannot be accepted. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and upon careful consideration of the findings recorded by respondent No.2 in Annexure-D, it is evident that the respondent-authorities had taken a decision to examine the grant made in favour of persons who had violated the conditions of grant relating to lands belonging to members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In this regard, the Tahsildar, Anekal, was directed to examine each case in detail. The said order was passed in the year 1999 and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28484 WP No. 38928 of 2025 therefore, same cannot ordinarily be interfered with after a lapse of 26 years, particularly when the petitioner was aware of the same at least from the year 2015. 7. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that, pursuant to Annexure-D, no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to him before taking any adverse decision affecting his rights. To that extent, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, respondent No.4 is directed to issue appropriate notice to the petitioner and afford him an opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, respondent No.4 shall take an appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law and in terms of the directions issued by respondent No.2 under the order dated 09.03.1999. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28484 WP No. 38928 of 2025 8. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8