- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34759 WP No. 33835 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.33835 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI W/O. SRI M. YATHISH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.28, 2ND CROSS, SHIVANANDA NAGAR, NAGARBHAVI ROAD, MUDLAPALYA, BENGALURU-560 072. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ARVIND PATIL B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, MINTO ANJANEYA SWAMY BHAVANA, ALUR VENKATA RAO ROAD, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34759 WP No. 33835 of 2025 CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560018, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE MAGADI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY GOVT. OFFICE COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, THIRUMALAI ROAD, MAGADI TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160. 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-562 120. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, LEARNED AAG., ALONG WITH SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP., FOR R.1 AND R.2; SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R.3; SRI. K.M. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R.4.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DATED 20.04.2021 BEARING NO.ADM/3/ LND-31/2006-07 (ANNEXURE-K) COMMUNICATED TO RESPONDENT NO.3 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND DIRECT RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 TO ACCORD SANCTION TO PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND RELEASE THE SITES FORMED IN SY.NO.8/1, MEASURING 35 GUNTAS SITUATED AT THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.8/1 MEASURING 35 GUNTAS SITUATED AT PEDDANAPALYA VILLAGE, TAVAREREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34759 WP No. 33835 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner, claiming to be the owner of the property which is the subject matter of the writ petition, is desirous of forming a layout on the said land and accordingly, has submitted the necessary application to respondent No.3 - the Planning Authority in this regard. 2. In the meanwhile, respondent No.2 - the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, has written a letter to the Department of Stamps and Registration stating that the land which is the subject matter of the writ petition belong to respondent No.2 Department and hence, no further registrations needs to be carried out in respect of the said property (vide Annexure-'K' to the writ petition). The said letter has been forwarded to respondent No.3. Acting upon the said letter, respondent No.3 is not proceeding - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34759 WP No. 33835 of 2025 further with the petitioner's request for sanction of the layout plan for formation of the layout. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- ”i) ISSUE a Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Circular dated 20.04.2021 bearing No.ADM/3/ LND-31/2006-07 (Annexure-K) communicated to 3rd Respondent by the 2nd Respondent. ii) ISSUE writ in the nature of direction to the 3rd and 4th Respondents to accord sanction to plan submitted by the petitioner and release the Sites formed in Sy.No.8/1, measuring 35 Guntas situated at the land bearing Sy.No.8/1 measuring 35 Guntas situated at Peddanapalya village, Tavarerekere Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. iii) ISSUE a Writ in the nature of direction to the 4th Respondent to issue Katha in favour of the Petitioner to the sites approved by the 3rd Respondent. iv) GRANT such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems it fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.", 3. The case of the petitioner is that the land which is the subject matter of the writ petition was granted in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34759 WP No. 33835 of 2025 favour of one Narasimhaiah by the jurisdictional Land Tribunal in the year 1982. He has first sold the land in the year 2008 and presently, the petitioner is the owner of the property. From the year 1982, the land has been held by private persons and they have been paying the necessary taxes and the revenue documents reflect their names. It is further contended that, if the Government is of the opinion that the land belongs to it, it is required to institute an appropriate suit in the manner known to law and thereafter, recover the same. Respondent No.2 is not authorized to issue a letter (Annexure-'K' to the writ petition) and respondent No.4 cannot act on the same. On the said ground, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed as prayed for. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, upon instructions, submits that the revenue records in respect of the land concerned is in the names of private persons since the year 1982 and that the petitioner is presently the owner of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34759 WP No. 33835 of 2025 the land. However, she submits that there appears to be an interpolation in the original revenue records and they doubt the genuineness of the grant certificate issued in favour of Narasimhaiah, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner herein. On the said ground, issuance of the letter at Annexure-'K' to the writ petition by respondent No.2 is justified and it is submitted that unless the petitioner establishes her title to the property, the question of granting a layout plan approval by respondent No.4 does not arise. The contention of learned AAG is supported by the counsel appearing for respondent No.3. On the said ground, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 5. Admittedly, there is an order passed by the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights in favour of Narasimhaiah and all the revenue documents pertaining to the land reflects the name of the said Narasimhaiah since 1982. Thereafter, in the year 2008, the said Narasimhaiah sold the land in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34759 WP No. 33835 of 2025 has been in possession of the said land. The said land which was initially agriculture in nature is presently, converted for non-agricultural residential purpose. At this juncture, when the petitioner has made a request to respondent No.3 - the Planning Authority, no action has been taken by respondent No.3 and it is contended that in the light of the letter issued by respondent No.2, permission cannot be granted. The records also reveal that though the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, has filed an affidavit stating that there appears to be an interpolation in the original revenue records, it is not denied that the revenue Authorities themselves have accepted those revenue records and have acted upon the same. The petitioner and her predecessor-in-title, have, since 1982, have been permitted by the Authorities concerned to act as owners of the property. Under the said circumstances, if the State is of the opinion that fraud was committed in obtaining the grant from the Land Tribunal in the year 1982 or that the order of the Land Tribunal is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34759 WP No. 33835 of 2025 bogus and concocted, it is at liberty to institute an appropriate original suit before the appropriate Court or such other proceedings before the concerned authority in the manner known to law. Till an appropriate Court / authority holds that the State is the owner of the property, the State cannot deny the benefit of the property to the petitioner. Presently, the petitioner is the owner of the property. 6. Under the circumstances, respondent No.3 cannot act upon the letter written by respondent No.2 to the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar not to register any transaction in respect of the property concerned and deny permission to the petitioner. 7. Hence, the following:- ORDER i. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for sanction of the layout plan in accordance with law, without - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34759 WP No. 33835 of 2025 relying upon the letter issued by respondent no.2 (Annexure-'K' to the writ petition) and to grant the necessary permissions after other conditions are fulfilled. ii. It is needless to state that, if the State is of the opinion that it is the owner of the property, it can always institute an appropriate suit or such other proceedings in the manner known to law. iii. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. iv. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB