- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:347 WP No. 29272 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 29272 OF 2025 (KLR-LG) BETWEEN: THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 009. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER -II, BENGALURU SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU- 560009. 2. SRI.P.K.NAVEEN, MAJOR, NO.7, KRISHNAKRUPA, 5TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR SOUTH, BENGALURU- 560041. 3. LIONS CLUB OF SARAKKI, MEETS @ LIONS COMMUNITY CENTRE, 1 'A' CROSS, MARENAHALLI, J.P.NAGAR, 2ND PHASE, BENGALURU- 560078. Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:347 WP No. 29272 of 2025 REPRESENTED BY ITS. PRESIDENT REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02/02/2022 MARKED AT ANNX-A PASSED BY THE R1 IN CASE NO. RRT(2) (S) CR-16/2020-21. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER This is a writ petition filed at the hands of the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk. Being aggrieved of the impugned order at Annexure-A passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner-II, Bangalore South Sub-Division, Bangalore in proceedings bearing No.RRT(2)(S)CR-16/2020-2021 dated 02.02.2022, proceedings were initiated at the hands of the writ petitioner before the Special Deputy Commissioner seeking invocation of the provisions under Sections 136(3) and 67(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, on the ground that the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:347 WP No. 29272 of 2025 grant said to have been made in favour of the 3rd respondent- Lions Club of Sarakki is not a genuine one and even if, the same is said to be true, nevertheless, in terms of Rule 108(I) a 'Gunduthopu' could not have been granted to the 3rd respondent. 2. The Special Deputy Commissioner has considered the appeal filed by the writ petitioner and has held that the Tahsildar himself has produced copy of the OM, whereby it is seen that in proceedings bearing No.LND(3)SR/70/75-76, issue register for the year 1965-66 to 1979-80 notification dated 10.10.1976 bearing No.BDIS/LND(B)SR/21/76-77, it is clear that the lands were indeed granted in favour of the 3rd respondent. The grant was made to an extent of 10 guntas. In that view of the matter, the Special Deputy Commissioner concluded that there is no basis for the claim of the writ petitioner that the grant itself may not be genuine. Accordingly, the proceedings were dropped at the hands of the Special Deputy Commissioner. 3. Learned HCGP appearing for the petitioner submits that the Special Deputy Commissioner has not considered - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:347 WP No. 29272 of 2025 whether the lands could be granted, having regard to the bar found in Rule 108(I) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. 4. However, this Court does not find any such contention raised before the Special Deputy Commissioner. Nevertheless, having regard to the contentions raised by the writ petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grant of 10 guntas of land which is approximately 1,000 square meters were made in favour of the 3rd respondent-Lions Club of Sarakki. Taking into consideration the usage of the land for which it was earmarked. 'Gunduthopu' is a land used for thrashing the paddy harvest which is no more in vogue. Moreover, This Court has time and again held that the invocation of the provision for cancellation of grant, be it Rule 108K, or Section 136(3) of the Act, which are suo motu powers vested with the competent authority to cancel the grant, such action should be taken within reasonable time. The grant having been made in the year 1976 and invocation of the provision at the hands of the petitioner in the year 2020-2021 clearly shows that the petitioner has only sought invocation of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:347 WP No. 29272 of 2025 the provision at the behest of the 2nd respondent who has probably made a complaint to the revenue authorities. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without issuance of notice to the respondents. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE rv