- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572052024 NC: 2026:KHC:48445 WP No. 26862 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.26862 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SAMPANGIRAMA REDDY S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/A NO.266, SRI. RAMA NILAYA, NEAR CEMENT FACTORY, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 560 099. 2. SRI. BYATAPPA @ DODDABYATAPPA S/O GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT NO.172, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 560 099. 3. Sri. KRISHNAPPA S/O GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.2-106, KRISHNAPPA BUILDING, OPP. CHANKYA GRANITES, CHANDAPURA, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 560 099. 4. SMT. BYATAPPA G. @ CHIKKABYATAPPA S/O GANGAPPA, Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572052024 NC: 2026:KHC:48445 WP No. 26862 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT GANGAPPA BUILDING, BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 560 099. 5. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O JAYARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT GANGAPPA BUILDING, BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 560 099. 6. Sri. B.M. RAMANATHA S/O R. MUNIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A NO.366, 3RD WARD, MUTHARAYASWAMY ROAD, NEAR S.K. PUBLIC SCHOOL, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 560 099. 7. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA @ MUNIYAMMA @ AMMAIAH W/O LATE R. MUNIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/A NO.366, 3RD WARD MUTHARAYASWAMY ROAD, NEAR S K PUBLIC SCHOOL, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 560 099. 8. SMT. SAROJA S/O LATE NANJAREDDY B.T., AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/A NO.2/365, THIMMA REDDY BUILDING, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572052024 NC: 2026:KHC:48445 WP No. 26862 of 2024 NEAR S K PUBLIC SCHOOL, CHANDAPURA, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 560 099. 9. SMT. AMARAVATHI W/O PILLA REDDY N., AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/A NO.265, NEAR ACC CEMENT FACTORY, BOMMASANDRA 3RD PHASE, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. 10. SRI. MADHU P. S/O PILLA REDDY N. AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/A NO.265, NEAR ACC CEMENT FACTORY, BOMMASANDRA 3RD PHASE, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 099. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 009. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. 3. THE SPECIAL THASHILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK OFFICE, ANEKAL – 562 106. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572052024 NC: 2026:KHC:48445 WP No. 26862 of 2024 4. SMT. B.M. MANJULA SHARMA W/O B.S. SKANDAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.1, 3RD CROSS, 5TH MAIN, SRINIDHI LAYOUT, KONANAKUNTE, BENGALURU – 560 062. 5. SRI. B.S.M. SHARMA S/O LATE VENKATASUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/A NO.121, D.S. MAX APARTMENT, BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 560 099. 6. SRI. B.S. MUNISHANKARA SHARMA S/O LATE VENKATASUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/A NO.121, D.S. MAX APARTMENT, BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 560 099. 7. SRI. MANOHAR SHARMA S/O B.S.M. SHARMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 560 099. 8. SRI. PRAVEEN PATIL S/O SHANKARGOUDA NINGANAGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/A NO.112, 1ST FLOOR, D S MAX SILVER WOOD APARTMENTS, NEAR S.K. PUBLIC SCHOOL, BOMMASANDRA, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 560 099. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572052024 NC: 2026:KHC:48445 WP No. 26862 of 2024 9. MRS. AFRINTAJ SHANAWAS D/O MR. SHANWAS, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO.21. THIRUVALLUVER STREET, KRISHANGIRI TOWN, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU – 635 001. 10. SRI. RADHAKRISHNA M. S/O LATE C. MUNIKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AN NO.308, KRISHNA LAYOUT, 11TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, ASHRIVAD COLONY, KALYANAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 043. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. R.K. THONTADHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23RD AUGUST, 2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN NO.R.P.253/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24TH MAY, 2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN CASE NO.R.A(A): 348/2019-20 VIDE ANNEXURE-B; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23RD AUGUST, 2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3-TAHSILDAR IN LND/192(A)/R/191/2022-23 VIDE ANNEXURE-P; AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572052024 NC: 2026:KHC:48445 WP No. 26862 of 2024 ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioners are challenging the order dated 23rd August, 2024 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner in Case No.R.P.253/2023; order dated 24th May, 2023 (Annexure-B) passed by the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner in Case No.R.A (A):348/2019-20; and order dated 23rd August, 2024 (Annexure-P) passed by the respondent No.3-Tahsildar. 2. Heard Sri. V.B. Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners; Sri. Shamanth Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3; and Sri. R.K. Thontadharya, learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 7. 3. Sri. V.B. Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, by referring to the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2, contended that the petitioners are claiming right over the property based on the three Sale Deeds dated 20th July, 1964 (Annexure-C), 13th September, 1965 (Annexure-D) and 25th July, 1966 (Annexure-E), however, the respondents 1 and 2 have committed an error in not construing - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572052024 NC: 2026:KHC:48445 WP No. 26862 of 2024 the said aspect of claiming right over the property based on the registered Sale Deed, while passing the impugned orders. 4. By referring to the order dated 11th January, 2023 (Annexure-Q) passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Bengaluru Urban District, learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that the controversy in the present case is as to 7 guntas of land which is not carved out of 1.29 acres of land which was granted in favour of original grantees and therefore, the finding recorded by both the respondents 1 and 2 requires interference before this Court. 5. Per contra, Sri. R.K. Thontadharya, learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 7 refers to the Re-grant order passed by the competent Authority produced at Annexure-R2 and submits that the land to an extent of 1.29 acres in Survey No.2 of Bommasandra Village was granted in favour of father of respondents 5 to 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 7 also refers to RTC Extract produced at Annexure-R3 and submits that, in view of Section 5(6) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'KVOA Act'), the land which has been purchased by the - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572052024 NC: 2026:KHC:48445 WP No. 26862 of 2024 predecessors of petitioners herein shall be considered as null and void. Accordingly, he argued that the finding recorded by respondents 1 and 2 is required to be confirmed in this petition. 6. Sri. Shamath Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 sought to justify the impugned orders passed by the respondent-Authorities. 7. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that, M.R. No.17/2008-09 dated 20th December, 2008 was challenged by the respondents 5 and 6 herein before the respondent No.2- Assistant Commissioner in Case No.R.A(A):348/2019-20 under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act on the ground that the land in question was re-granted in favour of predecessors of the respondents 5 and 6. The respondent No.2, by impugned order dated 24th May, 2023 (Annexure-B), allowed the appeal and set-aside the M.R. No.17/2008-09 dated 20th December, 2008. In this regard, petitioners herein are claiming right over the subject land based on the registered Sale Deeds dated 20th July, 1964 (Annexure-C), 13th September, 1965 (Annexure-D) and 25th July, 1966 (Annexure- - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572052024 NC: 2026:KHC:48445 WP No. 26862 of 2024 E). Perusal of Section 5(6) of the KVOA Act, makes it clear that, any contractual obligation made between the parties in respect of the land pursuant to the land being vested with the Government, is null and void. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, the respondents 1 and 2, by considering the said aspect of the matter, have rightly arrived at a conclusion insofar as modification of mutation in favour of respondents 5 and 6. 8. In this regard, it is relevant to cite the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of SHIDRAMAPPA BHEEMAPPA ASANGI AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2001 KAR 5072, wherein at paragraph 21, it is held as under: “21. In view of the above provisions and the facts as found, it is clear that on 1.3.1974, even if the petitioner was in possession of the lands, he could not have claimed any occupancy right therein in terms of Section 45 of the KLR Act because he was not in lawful possession thereof as has been found even by the appellate authority. Therefore, the Land Tribunal as well as the appellate authority cannot be said to have committed any error in holding that the application filed by the petitioner for grant of occupancy rights under - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572052024 NC: 2026:KHC:48445 WP No. 26862 of 2024 Section 48 of the KLR Act was not entertainable. So far as reliance placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the R. Rudraiah's case (Supra) is concerned, in our opinion, that judgment cannot be of any help in the present case since it was not related to Watan Property. Similarly, the doctrine of 'feeding the grant by estoppel' can also have no application since that doctrine is based on certain equitable considerations. But, sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the KVOA Act clearly prohibits transfer of lands for a period of 15 years with effect from 7.8.1978. If the doctrine of 'feeding the grant by estoppel' is permitted to be applied in the present case, then the consequence thereof will be clearly defective of the legislativeintendment contained under Section 5(3) of the KVOA Act. It is well settled that the legislative provisions has to have precedence over the equity principles contained under Common Law." 9. On perusal of the law declared by Division Bench of this Court in the case of SHIDRAMAPPA BHEEMAPPA ASANGI (supra), the provision under Section 5(6) of the KVOA Act, prohibits transfer of property and the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel is not applicable. It is also to be noted that, any contractual obligation pursuant to the promulgation of the Act, unless there is a valid re-grant order passed by the competent authority, is required to be considered as void and therefore, the finding recorded by the respondents 1 and 2 in - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010572052024 NC: 2026:KHC:48445 WP No. 26862 of 2024 the impugned orders is within the purview of the provision contained under the KVOA Act. However, in respect of submission made by learned counsel appearing for petitioners so as to 7 guntas of land, it is open for the petitioners to work out their remedy in a manner known to law. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56