- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13924 WP No. 49885 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 49885 OF 2012 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. RAMAIAH @ RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/O LATE JAMBAVAPPA, SINCE DECEASE REP BY HIS LR’S 1(a) SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA, D/O LATE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 1(b) SMT. BASAMMA, D/O LATE RAMAPPA, BOTH ARE R/AT NIMBEKAYIPURA VILLAGE, MADUR POST, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE- 560 049 AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.06.2025 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.H.VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001, Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13924 WP No. 49885 of 2012 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE SPL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE EAST TALUK/BANGALORE ADDL. TALUK, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009 3. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK, K.R. PURAM, BANGALORE – 560 036 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R2 DATED 4.8.12 VIDE ANNX-A 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 R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order under challenge at Annexure ‘A’ dated 04.08.2022 is passed by the second respondent-Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru East Taluk, invoking suo motu - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13924 WP No. 49885 of 2012 powers conferred under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. 2. Learned Counsel submits that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.10850/2021 dated 08.07.2021 has held that the Special Deputy Commissioners in the cadre of KAS are not permitted to initiate suo motu proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act. On this sole ground, learned Counsel submits that the writ petition should be allowed and the impugned order should be set aside. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed while quashing the impugned order at Annexure ‘A’ dated 04.08.2022 passed by the respondent-Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru. Consequently, if the name of the petitioners’ father has been removed from the revenue records pursuant to the impugned order, the respondent-Tahsildar and the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, shall forthwith restore the name of the petitioners’ father in the revenue - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13924 WP No. 49885 of 2012 records. At any rate, the name of the petitioners’ father shall be restored as expeditiously as possible and within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE JT/- CT:BSR