- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4489-DB W.A. No.1340/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.1340/2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001. (ADDRESS CORRECTED AS PER THE PRESENT STATUS) 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER -1 BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION BENGALURU 560009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU 560009. 4. THE TAHSILDAR YELAHANKA BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU 560064 …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, AGA) Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4489-DB W.A. No.1340/2025 AND: SRI. P. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE PILLAPPA R/AT NO.85, CHOKKANAHALLI JAALA HOBLI, BENGALURU POST YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT 562 149. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA RAO BHOUNSLE, ADV.,) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2024 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No.12271/2024 (KLR- RES) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This intra Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.09.2024 passed in W.P.No.12271/2024 (KLR-RES), wherein the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4489-DB W.A. No.1340/2025 2. The learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge committed a grave error in appreciating the material available on record. It is submitted that the subject land is a Government land which was not granted to the respondent as the same comes within 18 kms of distance from Bangalore city. It is further submitted that the revenue officials have committed fraud and based on such fraudulent records, the respondent is claiming that the land is granted to him and seeking to restore his name in the revenue records, which cannot be considered. It is also submitted that the respondent has filed CCC No.1411/2024 and thereafter, the appellant-State filed this appeal with an application seeking for condonation of delay of 287 days in filing the appeal. Hence, she seeks to condone the delay and also to allow the appeal. 3. Per contra, Sri.Manjunatha Rao Bhounsle, learned counsel for the respondent supports the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the respondent has filed a contempt petition in CCC No.1411/2024 and the said contempt proceedings were closed on 17.04.2025 recording that the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4489-DB W.A. No.1340/2025 State has not filed an appeal and the Tahsildar is obliged under the law to comply with the directions of the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, an application was filed for revival of the contempt petition which is listed along with this appeal. It is submitted that the respondent-State has not shown any cause to condone the delay of 287 days in filing the appeal and on the said ground alone, the writ appeal is liable to be rejected. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal and take action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for willful disobedience of the order of the learned Single Judge. 4. We have heard the submissions of the learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellant-State, the learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by both the sides. 5. The respondent filed a writ petition seeking the following prayer: a) A writ in the nature of mandamus or order or direction directing the 4th Respondent to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.173/P10 of Marenahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North [Additional] Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, measuring 39 guntas; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4489-DB W.A. No.1340/2025 b) Grant such other writs or orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 6. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition under the impugned order by directing the appellant No.4 to forthwith restore the appellant's name in the RTC pertaining to land bearing Sy.No.173/P10, measuring 39 guntas of Marenahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North (Additional) Taluk, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which it was ordered that the matter will be viewed very seriously and appropriate action shall be initiated against the respondent No.4-Tahsildar. 7. The records indicate that the respondent's application for regularization of land was considered and recommendation was made for regularization of unauthorised occupation. The appellant No.4 issued saguvali chit in favour of the respondent, the respondent deposited the requisite amount with the Authorities and his name was mutated as per M.R.No.2/1997-98. The appellant No.2-Special Deputy Commissioner initiated suo motu proceedings under Section - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4489-DB W.A. No.1340/2025 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and after due enquiry, came to the conclusion that the land granted in favour of the respondent is genuine and dropped the proceedings. The records further indicate that the appellant No.4-Tahsildar knowing fully well about the proceedings before the Special Deputy Commissioner and the order of dropping of the proceedings, mutated the name of the State Government in the revenue records which was assailed by the respondent before the appellant No.3- Assistant Commissioner. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner set aside the mutation entry and directed the Tahsildar to restore the name of the respondent in the revenue record insofar as the land in question. The learned Single Judge at paragraphs 6 to 8 of the order, taking note of the earlier proceedings and the direction of the Assistant Commissioner, has recorded the finding that there is complete laxness on the part of the appellant No.4-Tahsildar. The contention of the State that the subject land comes within 18 kms radius of Bengaluru Corporation limits, has no merit as the grant in question is in the year 1997 which is much prior to the embargo created under the Act. The another contention of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4489-DB W.A. No.1340/2025 State that the Authorities have played fraud, the subject land is a Government land and the name of the petitioner cannot be entered, is also required to be rejected as no such argument was advanced before the learned Single Judge. The records clearly indicate that the Revenue Authorities have clearly admitted the grant in favour of the respondent, issued saguvali chit, collected the amount as per the grant and his name was mutated in the revenue records which was later removed. It is open for the State to take action against the erring officials if they have played fraud and acted contrary to law. However, this Court cannot accept such vague assertion of fraud without any proper pleading and material. 8. It is to be noticed that the learned Single Judge, under the impugned order dated 19.09.2024 allowed the writ petition directing the appellants to restore the name of the respondent in the revenue records within 6 weeks and further held that non-compliance would be viewed seriously. The respondent filed CCC No.1411/2024 and the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 17.04.2025 has held as under: 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner is justified in submitting that the aforesaid directions are - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4489-DB W.A. No.1340/2025 not complied with despite long passage of time, more particularly in view of acceptance of the fact by learned Additional Government Advocate, when queried, that no appeal is filed against the aforesaid order of learned Single Judge. 5. In the totality of circumstances, respondent No.1-Tahsildar, is obliged in law to comply with the directions. 6. Therefore, respondent No.1-Tahsildar is directed to comply with, in any case, the directions within eight weeks from today failing which, the respondent shall be exposed to aggravated form of contempt. 7. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 9. The Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid order, directed the appellant No.4 to comply with the directions of the learned Single Judge within eight weeks from the date of order, failing which it was ordered that the respondent shall be exposed to aggravated form of contempt. The said order in the contempt proceedings has attained finality. The respondent filed an application for restoration of the contempt proceedings and to take action against the accused for willful disobedience of the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the Co- ordinate Bench. The respondent-State filed a memo dated 12.08.2025 stating that the Special Tahsildar, Yelahanka is the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4489-DB W.A. No.1340/2025 Competent Authority who has to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge as his login credentials are required in the Bhoomi website and hence, sought to implead Sri.Muniswamy Reddy, Special Tahsildar as the accused No.3. The respondent filed an impleading application as per the memo. The aforesaid events clearly demonstrate that the present appeal is filed belatedly only to overcome the contempt proceedings. This Court also observed that the appeal is filed along with an application in I.A.No.1/2025 seeking to condone the delay of 287 days in filing the appeal. The said application is accompanied by an affidavit of Sri.Shreyas G.S., Tahsildar, Yelahanka. The said affidavit does not whisper a single word with regard to the delay and the cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The prayer in the affidavit is to stay the order under challenge. A perusal of the affidavit filed by a responsible officer clearly demonstrates that the Tahsildar has signed the affidavit in a very casual manner without even reading the same, which in our view, is dereliction of duty as the State has specifically urged in the appeal that a fraud has been played and the Government land is required to be protected. Hence, the Revenue Secretary to the Government shall take note of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4489-DB W.A. No.1340/2025 the casual affidavit filed by Sri.Shreyas G.S., Tahsildar, Yelahanka, and initiate appropriate proceedings against him. 10. Insofar as the application seeking for condonation of delay of 287 days, no cause is shown in the accompanying affidavit. Hence, the delay cannot be condoned. The aforesaid narration of events clearly indicate that the appellant No.4, without seeing the records has filed the appeal contrary to the order dated 17.04.2025 passed in CCC No.1411/2024 by the Co-ordinate Bench. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any justifiable ground to condone the delay of 287 days in filing the appeal. We are of the view that the appellant-State has not made out any grounds to allow the appeal. Having recorded our finding with regard to the filing of the appeal belatedly and filing an application seeking condonation of delay with incorrect affidavit amounting to dereliction of duty by the Tahsildar who has sworn to the affidavit, we direct the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Government of Karnataka to take cognizance of the aforesaid observations and initiate departmental proceedings - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4489-DB W.A. No.1340/2025 against the erring Tahsildar, after providing opportunity to him in accordance with law. 12. With the aforesaid directions, the writ appeal is dismissed imposing cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid by the appellants to the respondent. However, liberty is reserved to the appellants to recover the same from the erring officials in accordance with law. 13. The contempt in CCC No.1411/2024 is delinked and three weeks' time is granted from today to comply the directions of the learned Single Judge as well as the Co- ordinate Bench in the aforesaid contempt petition. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19