- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1531 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO. 1505 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) WRIT APPEAL NO. 1532 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) WRIT APPEAL NO. 1611 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) WRIT APPEAL NO. 1660 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) IN WA No. 1531/2024 BETWEEN: MRS. C PARIMALA, W/O. LATE SHIVANNA D/O. LATE CHANNAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.235 6TH MAIN ROAD, SAINIK VIHAR LAYOUT, KENCHANAHALLI, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVANANDA D S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TAHASILDAR, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, YELAHANKA UPANAGARA, BEGALURU - 560 064. R Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS 2. AZMATH ULLA KHAN, S/O IBRAHIM KHAN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RA NO.17/A, H CROSS ROAD, BISMILLA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 029. 3. G. VENKATARAMANA, S/O LATE G.C.K. SOMAYAJI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.295, "PADMAKALA" I MAIN, VIDYAPEETHA ROAD, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.D.R. RAVISHANKAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SARAVANA S.,ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 AND R3, SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:26/09/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.19011/2024 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN WA NO. 1505/2024 BETWEEN: 1. MR. SOHANLAL JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O LATE DALLARAM JOSHI, R/AT NO. 123, 124, SAINIK VIHAR LAYOUT, KENCHAMAHAL, YELLAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 064. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVA SHANKAR C., ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. REP BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK YELAHANKA UPANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 064. 3. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER R/AT A SECTOR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064. 4. MR. AZMATH ULLA KHAN, S/O IBRAHIM KHAN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO. 17/A, H CROSS ROAD, BISMILAH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 029. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SARAVANA. S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R4, SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2, SRI. RAGHAVANA PARTHASARATHY, ADVOCATE FOR R3, SRI. B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR PSD IMPLEADEING R5) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT PASSED IN WP NO.18606/2024 DATED:26.09.2024 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO.18606/2024 BY ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED:10.01.2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN ALN(Y)R/10/2022- 23 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC. IN WA NO. 1532/2024 BETWEEN: PRAMOD DHARMAPPA SHOBHA, S/O RAVIKANTH S.S. GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEAR, R/AT FLAT NO.C106, ARUN PATIOS APARTMENT, KENCHANAHALLI, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVANANDA D S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK YELAHANKA UPANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 064. 2. AZMATH ULLA KHAN, S/O IBRAHIM KHAN, AGED 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.17/A, H CROSS ROAD, BISMILLA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 029. 3. G. VENKATARAMANA, S/O. LATE. G.C.K. SOMAYAJI, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.295 'PADMMAKALA', 1ST MAIN VIDYAPEETHA ROAD, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SARAVANA. S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 AND R3, SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT,1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:26.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP No.19012/2024, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN WA NO. 1611/2024 BETWEEN: RADHIKA K.B., W/O MR P.N. BALAJI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. NS3/C , 14TH WARD, OFFICIAL COLONY, OPP. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, HOSAPETE, KARNATAKA - 583 225. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. T. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS 2. THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 064. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009. 4. AZMATULLA KHAN S/O IBRAHIM KHAN, AGED MAJOR KENCHENAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 085. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SARAVANA. S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R4, SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:26.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.13659/2024(KLR-RES) AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE WP NO.13659/2024(KLR- RES)AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS DEEMED NECESSARY. IN WA NO. 1660/2024 BETWEEN: 1. MR. SOHANLAL JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O. LATE DALLARAM JOSHI, R/AT NO.123, 124, SAINIK VIHAR LAYOUT, KENCHAMAHALL, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS YELLAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 064. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI.T.PRAKASH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. TAHSILDHAR, NES OFFICE ROAD, SUGAPPA LAYOUT, EAST COLONY, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064. 5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 064. 6. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 064. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS 7. SRI. AZMATH ULLAH KHAN, S/O LATE IBRAHIM KHAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, C/O. NO.295, FIRST MAIN, OPP. VIS CO-OP BANK, BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085. 8. G. VENKATARAMANA, S/O G.C.K. SOMAYAJI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, NO. 295, 1ST MAIN, VIDYAPEETA ROAD, BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE -560 085. 9. UMAVENKAT W/O G. VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.295, 1ST MAIN, VIDYAPEETA ROAD, BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085. 10. MRS. LALITHA KUMARI, W/O K.P. PALAKSHA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT SRIRANGA NILAYA, 4TH WARD, TANK ROAD, RAJIPURA DODDABALLAPURA, BANGALORE RURAL, BENGALURU - 561 203. 11. MR. SHIVARAJ M., S/O MUNINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.1700/14, C-BLOCK, 27TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN, SAHAKARANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 092. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS 12. SARAVANANA K., S/O SRI C. KATHIRVEL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NO.31/A GROUND FLOOR, VASANTHA NILAYAM, 5TH 'A' CROSS, SHANBOUGH LAYOUT, DODDAREKUNDI, BENGALURU - 560 037. 13. MOHAMMED TAZIM RAWAT, S/O MAJOR ATEEQ MOHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 1ST FLOOR, MUKUND APARTMENT, PALM GRAND ROAD, VICTORIA LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 047. 14. SMT. VEENA H. W/O LATE NARAGANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, NO.16/7 SESHADRI NILAYA, HALLAPANAHALLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU - 562 114. 15. N SONNAPPA, S/O LATE NARAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, KUNDANA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU. 16. P. CHANDRASHEKHAR, S/O LATE PURUSHOTHAM NANDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, NO.23/1, FLAT NO.E2, 2ND FLOOR LOTUS HEIGHTS, 3RD MAIN ROAD, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS SULTAN PALYA MAIN ROAD, NEAR SBI, R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032. 17. MS. GOWHAR UNNISA, D/O SYED ABDUL RAHAMAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, NO.12-1-2H, T.B. CROSS, T.B. EXTENTION, RAMANAGARAM - 562 159. 18. SHAZIA SULTANA, W/O JAVEEDULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, NO.39, DOOR NO.003, HOSUR ROAD, SENAN TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 046. 19. BABY MISHRA, W/O RAJGURU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.247/217, SAINIK VIHAR 40, KENCHANAHALLI, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 064. 20. THYAGARAJULU, S/O SRI, K. DORAISWAMY, NAIDU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.140, SAINIK VIHAR, KENCHANAHALLI, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 064. 21. MR. VENKARARATNAM NAIDU, S/O LATE MARAKONDA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT 137, 138, SAINIK VIHAR 40, KENCHANAHALLI, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 064. 22. P. GEETHA, W/O NEERAJAKSHILU, NAIDU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.107, SAINIK VIHAR 40, KENCHANAHALLI, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 064. 23. R. VANITHA, W/O LATE R. RAVI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.100, 103, SAINIK VIHAR 40, KENCHANAHALLI, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 064. 24. K. SRIDHAR, S/O K. CHENNIALA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, NO.108, 108A, SAINIK VIHAR 40, KENCHANAHALLI, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 064. 25. LINDON JOHSON, S/O JOHN WILSON, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT 143/144, SAINIK VIHAR 40, KENCHANAHALLI, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 064. 26. PURUSHOTHAM NAIDU, S/O LATE PARIJATHAMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS NO.106, SAINIK VIHAR 40, KENCHANAHALLI, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 064. 27. R. NAGARAJ, S/O LATE RAMA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, NO.105A, SAINIK VIHAR 40, KENCHANAHALLI, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SARAVANA.S, ADVOCATE FOR C/R7 TO 9; SRI.M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 TO 6; SRI.B.S.KARTHIKEYAN,ADVOCATE FOR PSD R28) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT PASSED IN WP NO.17208/2024 DATED:26.09.2024 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M. NADAF) These batch of intra Court appeals are filed calling in questioning the common order dated 26.09.2024 in W.P.No.13659/2024 C/w. W.P.Nos.17208/2024, 18606/2024, 19011/2024 & 19012/2024 passed by the Writ Court. 2. Under the impugned order, the Writ court allowed W.P.No.17208/2024 and ordered Writ of Mandamus to respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Yalahanka, Bengaluru to implement the order/notice dated 10.01.2023. However, dismissed W.P.Nos.13659/2024, 18606/2024, 19011/2024 & 19012/2024 reserving liberty to the petitioners therein to establish their right in respect of the subject land/sites before the competent civil Court, in terms of the finding recorded by the Trial Court in O.S.No.665/2007 and connected suits. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS 3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking in W.P.No.17208/2024. 4. Facts germane to file these appeals are as under: (i) W.P.Nos.13659/2024, 18606/2024, 19011/2024 & 19012/2024 were filed challenging the impugned order/notice dated 01.08.2023 and 10.01.2023 respectively issued by respondent - Tahsildar, Yalahanka Hobli, Bengaluru, where under the Tahsildar has ordered to vacate/remove the encroachment of land made by the unauthorized residents under Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 19641, on the premise that the land was being used illegally for non-agriculture purposes. So far as W.P.No.17208/2024 is concerned, it was filed seeking implementation of the order dated 10.01.2023. 1 for short, 'the KLR Act' - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS (ii) The contention of the petitioner in W.P.No.13659/2024 is that, he has purchased two schedule sites from one S.K.Mayiappa under registered Sale Deeds dated 27.07.2017 and 28.06.2017 (Annexures-C and D) carved out of Sy.No.34 of Kenchenahalli Village, Yalahanka Hobli, Bengaluru. As per the petitioner, the sites are situated in a layout named as 'Sainik Vihar Layout'. It is his case that the respondent - Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings since the schedule sites are within the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike2 and as such, provisions contained under the KLR Act are not made applicable to the land in dispute. Accordingly, he sought to set- aside the order impugned at Annexures-A and B by allowing the Writ Petition. (iii) So far as petitions in W.P.Nos.18606/2024, 19011/2024 & 19012/2024 are concerned, they are 2 for short, 'the BBMP' - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS more or less similar to the case in W.P.No.13659/2024. The petitioners in these petitions are the purchasers of site in the layout stated supra challenging the very same notice/order dated 10.01.2023. (iv) The case of the petitioners in W.P.No.17208/2024 is that the land bearing Sy.No.33/1 to an extent of 02 Acres 10 Guntas and land bearing Sy.No.33/3 to an extent of 02 Acres and land bearing Sy.No.33/5 to an extent of 01 Acre 33 Guntas, totally an extent of 06 Acres 13 Guntas originally belonged to one Mariyappa and petitioner No.1 had purchased the said properties as per the registered Sale Deeds at Annexures-A1, A2 and A3. It is contended that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have purchased the land bearing Sy.No.33/5 to an extent of 01 Acre 33 Guntas from petitioner No.1 as per registered Sale Deed dated 20.11.2023 (Annexure-B) and in respect of remaining extent of land bearing Sy.No.33/1, - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS measuring 02 Acres 10 Guntas and land bearing Sy.No.33/3 measuring 02 Acres, they petitioner No.1 has executed registered General Power of Attorney dated 17.06.2022 in favor of petitioner No.2 authorizing him to look after the entire affairs of the land. (v) It is their case that the erstwhile owner of the property - Mariyappa died on 14.07.2010. It is contended that, one Saleem has forged the General Power of Attorney of late Mariyappa and created dubious sale deed in respect of fifteen persons, who filed a suit in O.S.No.665/2007 and other connected suits against the vendor of the petitioners and the said suits came to be dismissed and no further proceedings taken against the said judgment and decree and have attained finality. (vi) The petitioners further contended that they have filed a suit in O.S No.125/2020 before the Civil Court against the persons who were interfering with the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS peaceful possession of the suit schedule property as per Annexure-E, seeking a declaration with consequential relief of injunction. It is their further case that the said interference has been brought to the notice of respondent No.2 - jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, complaining about the unauthorized encroachment. In furtherance of the same, respondent No.2 has issued an order dated 04.01.2022 directing respondent No.4 - Tahsildar to take action against the unauthorized encroachment made in respect of the schedule properties. In turn, respondent No.4 Tahsildar addressed letters to the Joint Commissioner, Yelahanka Sub-Division, respondent No.5 -Station House Officer, Yelahanka Town Police Station and to the Executive Engineer, BESCOM, Yelahanka and sought police protection to remove illegal encroachments made by persons as per the allegations of the petitioners. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS (vii) It is their further case that when the order of respondent - revenue authority was sought to be implemented, an association of persons by name "Sainik Vihar Site/House Owners Welfare Association" filed W.P.No.2074/2023, seeking to quash the order dated 10.01.2023 (Annexure-F) and this Court vide order dated 23.06.2023, dismissed the petition (Annexure-H) on the ground that the Society has no locus standi, but observed in Paragraph No.3 that if anybody is to be evicted pursuant to the impugned order, the same will be done only after affording them an opportunity of hearing. (viii) It is further averred in the Writ Petition that since there is continuous interference by encroachers, the petitioners approached respondent Nos.4 and 5 to take action against the encroachers and filed complaint against which an endorsement came to be issued, relegating them to file Civil suit since the dispute is civil in nature. Aggrieved by the same, the - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS petitioners presented the Writ Petition seeking a Mandamus against respondent No.4 to implement the order dated 10.01.2023. (ix) During the pendency of the petitions, certain applicants filed impleading applications claiming to be the members of the aforesaid society/Welfare association in I.A.Nos.2/2024 to 5/2024, which came to be allowed and they were impleaded as respondents and they opposed the implementation of the order dated 10.01.2023 which is the impugned order in other connected Writ Petitions. (x) The Writ Court after completion of pleadings, heard Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Saravana S., for the petitioners in W.P.No.17208/2024 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 in W.P.No.19011/2024, and in W.P.No.19012/2024; Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Venkatesh Murthy.G.R, for the petitioner in W.P.No.13659/2024 - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS and respondent Nos.7 to 15 in W.P.No.17208/2024; Sri.Abhinav.R., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 in W.P.No.13659/2024 and in W.P.No.18606/2024; Smt.Pramila Nesargi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Muniswamy Gowda.S.G. for the petitioner in W.P.No.18606/2024 and for respondent Nos.16 to 25 in W.P.No.17208/2024; Sri.Shivananda.D.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.19011/2024 and in W.P.No.19012/2024; Sri.Raghava Parthasarathy and Sri.Vivek Ravi Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 in W.P.No.18606/2024 and Sri.Hanamanthray Lagali, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent- Government. (xi) Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.17208 of 2024 and for the respective respondents in other writ - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS petitions argued that originally the land bearing Sy.Nos.33 and 34 of Kenchenahalli village, Yalahanka Hobli, Bengaluru, belongs to one S.K.Mariyappa who died intestate leaving behind his wife and son, namely Smt.Gowri and Sri.Manoj, who stated to have sold the sites in favor of one Ramlal Sharma. He also argued that one Mohammed Salim, had formed a residential layout, including the sites in question claimed by the petitioners in the remaining Writ Petitions, illegally. The owners of said sites filed various suits in OS No.665/2007 and other connected suits, which came to be dismissed on 31.07.2021 on merits (Annexure-D). The aforesaid suits were filed for bare injunction. (xii) Learned Senior counsel, referring to paragraphs 53, 54 and 55 of the judgment of the Trial Court passed in O.S No.665/2007 and connected suits argued that, the Trial Court dismissed the suits as the relief of injunction simpliciter is not maintainable and directed - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS the plaintiffs therein to file a suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction. However, the said plaintiffs in those suits have not filed any suits till today for declaration and consequential relief of injunction. As such, the Writ Petition filed by said persons under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not maintainable. (xiii) Learned Senior counsel further referring to paragraph No.59 of the Judgment contended that, there is a categorical finding by the Trial Court that the plaintiffs have not produced any materials relating to their possession in respect of the suit schedule properties therein, as such the Writ Petitions seeking Certiorari challenging the order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the respondent Tahsildar are not maintainable. He also submitted that, the petitioners in W.P.No.17208/2024 are basing their claim on the registered Sale Deeds produced at Annexure-A and B series and the same would establish the ownership in - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS respect of the subject land and accordingly, sought mandamus by way of direction to the Tahsildar to implement the order dated 10.01.2023 as there is persistent interference and encroachment. (xiv) He further submitted that in view of 300A of the Constitution of India, there is infringement of constitutional right guaranteed and the Revenue Authorities being the Statutory Authorities, are duty bound to safeguard the interest of the petitioners, in view of the direction by the Deputy Commissioner to the Tahsildar to take action against the illegal encroachers under the provisions of KLR Act. He also submitted that in view of dismissal of O.S.No.665/2007 and other connected suits, the plaintiffs who are the petitioners in other connected Writ Petitions cannot maintain the Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by placing reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS PATHAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND OTHERS3. (xv) Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, further submitted that both the petitioner as well as contesting respondents are claiming right in respect of the said land on the basis of sale deeds. His contention is, the petitioners in W.P.No.17208/2024 are claiming right through one Shamsundar R.Bhatija who had purchased the schedule land from S.K.Mariyappa under registered Sale Deed dated 20.01.1996. The petitioners are purchasers from Shamsundar R.Bhatija, as such the sale deed by the petitioner prevails over the registered sale deeds claimed by the other petitioners in connected Writ Petitions. In this regard, he placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in UMADEVI NAMBIAR VS. THAMARASSERI ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE REPRESENTED BY TIS PROCURATOR DEVSSIA'S SON REV. FATHER 3 (2013) 4 SCC 465 - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS JOSEPH KAPPIL4 and in the case of PADHIYAR PRAHLADJI CHENAJI (DECEASED) THROOUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES VS. MANIBEN JAGMALBHAI (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTEHRS5. Accordingly, sought indulgence of the Writ Court for issuance of Mandamus to the concerned Revenue Authorities to remove the encroachments/ illegal interference made by the petitioners in the connected Writ Petitions. (xvi) In contrast, Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.13659/2024 and respondents in W.P.No.17208/2024 argued that W.P.No.17208/2024 is not maintainable on the ground that the petitioners therein have filed O.S.No.125/2020 and O.S.No.126/2020 seeking declaration and same is pending consideration before the Trial Court as Civil 4 (2022) 7 SCC 90 5 (2022) 12 SCC 128 - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS disputes and in these circumstances, parallel proceedings in Writ Petition is not maintainable. Emphasizing on Paragraph No.3 of the order dated 26.03.2023 in W.P.No.2074/2023, he contended that the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.17208/2024 is not maintainable and required to be dismissed in view of the pending suits as the prayer sought is same and in terms of provisions contained under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to interfere with the schedule lands and only the Planning Authority is empowered to set-right things and placed reliance on the order dated 10.12.2021 in W.P.No.40157/2014 and sought to reject W.P.No.17208/2024. (xvii) Smt.Pramila Nesargi, learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner in W.P.No.18606/2024 and for respondent Nos.16 to 25 in W.P.No.17208/2024 contended that the order dated 10.01.2023 is non- - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS est and the petitioner in the aforesaid petition has filed a suit in O.S.No.25493/2007 before the competent Civil Court against one Abdul Rafeeq Ahmed, which came to be decreed vide Judgment and Decree dated 08.02.2008 and therefore the petitioner has established his right in respect of the subject site and accordingly, sought for interference of the Court in the impugned order. (xviii) The said argument was countered by Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri.R.Abhinav, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. Learned Senior counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.4 in unison submitted that the petitioner filed the suit O.S.No.25493/2007 seeking permanent injunction, which came to be decreed ex-parte on 08.02.2008 against one Abdul Rafeeq Ahmed, however the suit schedule property has been sold by Sri.S.K.Mariyappa in favor of Sri.Shamsundar - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS R.Bathija on 20.01.1996 much prior to the purchase of subject site by the petitioner in W.P.No.18606/2024 and therefore, the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable and sought to dismiss the Writ Petition. (xix) Sri.Abhina.R, with reference to his contention regarding non-maintainability of the Writ Petition relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDIC SCIENSES AND ANOTHER VS. BIKARTAN DAS AND OTEHRS6 and argued that W.P.No.18606/2024 is liable to be dismissed as no ground has been made out for interference by this Court to protect the civil rights of the parties. (xx) Sri.Hanamanthray Lagali, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent - Government justified the impugned notice/order 6 2023 SCC ONLINE SC 996 - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS passed by the Tahsildar and sought to dismiss the Writ Petitions. 5. The Writ Court after considering the rival submissions, having found that there are disputed question of facts involved in the Writ Petition with regard to relief claimed by the parties and in view of the settled position of law, the Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, dismissed W.P.Nos.13659/2024, 18606/2024, 19011/2024 & 19012/2024, however liberty was reserved to the petitioners therein to establish their right in respect of the subject land/sites before the competent Civil Court, in terms of the finding recorded by the Trial Court in O.S.No.665/2007 and connected suits. However, allowed W.P.No.17208/2024 and directed respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Yalahanka, Bengaluru to implement the order/notice dated 10.01.2023. It is this common order passed by the Writ Court in connected Writ Petitions is called in question in this batch of appeals. - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS 6. Heard, Sri.Shivananda.D.S, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.1531/2024 and W.A.No.1532/2024, Sri.M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.1531/2024; for respondents 1 and 2 in W.A.No.1505/2024; for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.1532/2024; for respondents 1 to 3 in W.A.No.1611/2024; and for respondents 1 to 6 in W.A.No.1660/2024, Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri.Saravana.S, for caveator/respondents 2 and 3 in W.A.No.1531/2024; for caveator/respondent No.4 in W.A.No.1505/2024; for caveator/respondents 2 and 3 in W.A.No.1532/2024; for caveator/ respondent No.4 in W.A.No.1611/2024; and for caveator/ respondents 7 to 9 in W.A.No.1660/2024, Sri.Shiva Shankar.C, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.1505/2024, Sri.Raghavan Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 in W.A.No.1505/2024, Sri.B.S.Karthikeyan, learned - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS counsel appearing for proposed respondent No.5 in W.A.No.1505/2024 and for proposed respondent No.28 in W.A.No.1660/2024 and Sri.T.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.1611/2024 and appellant in W.A.No.1660/2024. 7. This Court after hearing the rival submissions of the parties on the legal point as to whether the Revenue Authorities have the right to take action in terms of the KLR Act or it is the BBMP, which according to the appellants now has the authority over the subject lands as the lands were made subject to the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation, directed the Government Advocate to keep the concerned Tahsildar present before the Court on 02.04.2026. The concerned Tahsildar of Yelahanaka by name Mr.Shreyas.G.S was present before the Court and sought time to file an affidavit. This Court vide order dated 02.04.2026 directed Tahsildar as well as the BBMP to file their affidavits on the points raised in the order. The order dated 02.04.2026 reads as under: - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS "ORAL ORDER Mr.Shreyas.G.S - Tahsildar, Yelahanka is present in the Court and seeks time to file an affidavit on the following issues: 1. When the area in question came within the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short, 'BBMP')? 2. Whether the order of eviction from the agricultural land passed in the year 2014 be implemented in the year 2023 after the area concerned has come within the jurisdiction of BBMP by the revenue authorities? 3. Whether the Kathas have been formed of the land in question by the BBMP? We direct the BBMP also to file its affidavit on the aforesaid issues, before the next date of posting of these appeals. We make it clear that we will not grant any further time to the BBMP and the Tahsildar to file their respective affidavits and if the authority fails to do the needful as directed above, the authorities shall remain present before this Court on the next date of posting of these appeals. Post these appeals on 09.04.2026. Interim order granted earlier if any, shall be in operation till the next date of posting." 8. Since there are questions regarding exercise of jurisdiction raised before us by the parties, we directed the BBMP also to file its affidavit on the aforesaid issues stated - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS in the order dated 02.04.2026 and ordered to list the matters on 09.04.2026. 9. On 09.04.2026, the Joint Commissioner, BBMP as well as Tahsildar, filed their respective affidavits. 10. The affidavit filed by the Joint Commissioner, BBMP reads as under: "AFFIDAVIT OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, BBMP I, Pallavi K R, D/oRamachandraiah K K, aged about 40 years, presently working as Joint Commissioner, Zone 2 Banglore North City Corporation Bengaluru, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows: 1. I am the Joint Commissioner of Zone 2 Banglore North City Corporation - Greater Bangalore Authority and I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. I am competent and authorized to swear to this affidavit on behalf of BBMP. 2. I state that this affidavit is filed in compliance with the directions of this Hon'ble Court, particularly the order dated 02.04.2026, calling upon BBMP to clarify specific issues arising in the present proceedings. - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS Re: Issue No. 1 - When the area in question came within the jurisdiction of BBMP 3. I respectfully submit that mere inclusion of the schedule lands/sites forming the subject matter of the present proceedings came within the jurisdiction of BBMP pursuant to the Government Notification dated 16.01.2007, whereby the said areas were included within the limits of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. 4. It is further submitted that mere inclusion of the said areas within BBMP limits does not, by itself, alter the nature, classification, or legal status of the land. The schedule lands/sites continued to remain agricultural nature revenue records,notwithstanding their inclusion within BBMP limits. Re: Issue No. 2- Whether the eviction order passed in 2014 can be implemented after inclusion within BBMP jurisdiction 5. It is submitted that the schedule lands/sites continued to retain their agricultural character under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, as the owners of the said lands/sites did not seek or obtain conversion of land use or deemed conversion at any point of time. 6.It is further submitted that the petitioners/owners applied for issuance of khata only at a later point of time, and B khata entries - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS came to be issued in or about the years 2017- 2018, primarily for the limited purpose of assessment and collection of property tax. 7. It is submitted that the issuance of B khata does not regularize the land use nor does it confer any legality upon the property. It is merely an administrative entry and cannot be construed as recognition of lawful conversion or authorization for construction. 8. It is submitted that any construction put up on the schedule lands/sites appears to have been undertaken unauthorizedly during the period 2017-2018, without obtaining conversion orders or sanctioned building plans, and in violation of applicable statutory provisions. 9. In the above circumstances, it is submitted that until such time the lands continued to be agricultural in character, the jurisdiction over said lands vested with the Tahsildar/Revenue Authorities, and therefore the proceedings initiated under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, including the eviction order passed in the year 2014. 10. It is further submitted that even as on date, in the absence of conversion or deemed conversion, the schedule lands/sites continue to be revenue properties as per law. Re: Issue No. 3 - Whether khatas have been formed by BBMP - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS 11. It is submitted that khatas in respect of the schedule lands/sites have been issued by BBMP only under the 'B Register' category during the years 2017-2018. 12. It is reiterated that B khata does not confer any legal right, title, or authorization, nor does it validate any construction or change of land use. It is maintained solely for the purpose of property tax assessment. Further Submissions 13. It is submitted that the owners of the schedule lands/sites have not made any application for change of land use nor sought deemed conversion, and therefore the lands continue to retain their agricultural/revenue character. 14. It is further submitted that as per the statutory provisions governing BBMP (now under the Greater Bengaluru Governance), no building plan sanction can be granted in respect of B khata properties, and consequently, any construction put up on such properties is unauthorized and illegal. 15. It is submitted that BBMP (now Greater Bengaluru Authority) is empowered under Section 243(3) and 244(1) of the Greater Bangalore Governance Act to initiate action against unauthorized constructions, including - 38 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS issuance of notices and removal/demolition of such illegal structures. 16. It is respectfully submitted that upon inclusion of the schedule lands/sites within BBMP limits, municipal control over building activity vested with BBMP, however, the nature, classification, and legality of land use continue to be governed by the revenue laws unless duly converted. 17. I state that GBA undertakes to initiate and pursue appropriate action, in accordance with statutory provisions, against any unauthorized constructions existing on the schedule lands/sites. If Katha is issued by BBMP/GBA. 18. The statements made hereinabove are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. Verified at Bengaluru on this 7th day of April, 2026, that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief." 11. The affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, Yelahanka reads as under: "AFFIDAVIT I, Shreyas G.S S/o Shivanna G.C aged about 38 years, working as Tahsildar, Yelahanka Taluk, - 39 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS Bengaluru Urban District, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1. I State that I am working as Tahsildar, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, I have gone through records and other documents available in the office of Tahsildar and I am aware of the facts of the above case. Hence, I am competent to swear to this Affidavit. 2. It is most respectfully submitted that on 02.04.2026 this Hon'ble Court has issued a direction to the undersigned to file an affidavit on the following issues:- "i. When the area in question came within the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short, 'BBMP')? ii. Whether the order of eviction from the agricultural land passed in the year 2014 be implemented in the year 2023 after the area concerned has come within the jurisdiction of BBMP by the revenue authorities? iii. Whether the Kathas have been formed of the land in question by the BBMP?". 3. It is most respectfully submitted that with respect to issue No.1, the said area in question that is Kenchenahally Village, Yelahanka Taluk, Bangalore Urban District, came under the jurisdiction of the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike since 2007 vide notification bearing Number UDD 92 MNY 2006, - 40 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS Bengaluru dated 16.01.2007 issued by Urban Development Secretariat through a Gazette Notification. The Copy of the said Notification is produced herewith and marked as DOCUMENT NO.1. 4. It is most respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Court further directed to the undersigned respond to whether the order of eviction from the agricultural land which came to be passed in 2014, could be implemented in the year 2023. It is humbly submitted that the above order passed on 31.12.2014 by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Bengaluru Urban District, where Phodi for the Survey Numbers 34/1,2,3 has been cancelled and he directs the Tahsildar to take action against the Officials who are responsible for formation of unauthorized layout U/S 192-A of Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964. The above said order was not passed by the Deputy Commissioner for eviction and does not utter a word on eviction. The copy of the said order is produced herewith and marked as DOCUMENT NO.2 (along with translated copy). Pursuant to the said order no action has been taken by the office of the Tahsildar. Since the land in question is an agricultural land and the land is not converted, the revenue authorities can initiate action under - 41 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS section 96 of the Karnataka Land Revenue act. 5. It is most humbly submitted that with respect to 3rd issue, it can be seen from Annexure-C of the Writ Petition, which is produced at page number 72 in the appeal memorandum, that the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike has issued Katha numbers to the site holders. This is evident from the tax paid receipt of the year 2024-2025. It is for Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to respond as to whom the Khata came to be issued. 6. It is most humbly submitted that since the said lands are now within the jurisdiction of Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, it is for them to initiate or continue further proceedings in accordance with law. WHEREFORE, I humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take the contents of my affidavit on record, in the interest of justice and equity." 12. On the affidavit of the Tahsildar, Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior counsel has taken objection relying on the earlier affidavit filed as compliance affidavit in C.C.C No.113/2024 and contended that the - 42 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS very same Tahsildar submitted that he has already initiated action under proceedings to 192A of KLR Act in respect of the illegal layout formed in agricultural lands in Sy.Nos.33/1, 33/3, 33/5, 34/2 and 34/3 over different extent of lands, as such the affidavit now filed by the said Tahsildar contending that the dispute lands in Kenchenahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru comes under jurisdiction of BBMP since 2007 vide Notification bearing No.UDD 92 MNY 2006 dated 16.01.2007 issued by Urban Development Secretariat vide Gazette Notification under document No.1, cannot be countenanced. He further submits that even if it is taken for the sake of argument but without admitting that, the land falls within the jurisdiction of Municipality, but since the lands were not converted from agricultural to non-agricultural use and the same remained as agricultural lands, the revenue authorities under the provisions of KLR Act have got all jurisdiction to take action against the illegal encroachment over the agricultural land and relied on the Judgment of - 43 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of SUNIL CHAJED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP, BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT AND OTHERS7 and placed reliance on Paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the order, they are as follows: "10. From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that the power has been conferred on the Commissioner to direct survey of buildings or lands within the city with a view to assessment of property tax. The aforesaid provision has no bearing so far as the issue involved in this case is concerned viz., whether Tahsildar has jurisdiction to decide the matter pertaining to fixing the boundary of lands forming survey number. The provisions of the Act as well as Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act operate in different fields and in any case, the scope and ambit of the power under Section 140(2) of the Act cannot be determined with reference to Section 112D of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, which even otherwise has no bearing on the issue. 11. It is settled in law that judgments have not to be read as Euclid's theorems and their ration descideni has to be determined with reference to the factual matrix in which the case is decided. The 7 2022 SCC OnLine KAR 1632 - 44 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS reliance placed by the respondent No.3 on the decision of division bench of this court in J.M.NARAYANA AND OTHERS VS. CORPORATION OF CITY OF BANGALORE supra is concerned, it is pertinent to note that the division bench in the aforesaid case was dealing with the issue of non payment of court fee on the memo of appeal. In the aforesaid context, the division bench of this court while dealing with the issue of valuation in paragraph 5 held that if certain lands are included in the Corporation limits are registered or used for cultivation purposes would not imply that the land continues to pay land revenue under the Land Revenue Act. It was further held that Land Revenue Act would cease to be applicable no sooner the land is brought within the limits of Corporation. The aforesaid finding recorded by the division bench has to be understood in the context in which it has been made namely for the purpose of valuation of the land in context of payment of court fee. It is noteworthy that the aforesaid decision does not deal with the powers of Tahsildar under Section 140(2) of the Act. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the aforesaid decision is not an authority for the proposition that the provisions of the Act do not apply to the land in question if it is included in Municipal Limits. The aforesaid decision is therefore, of no assistance to respondent No.3 in the facts of the case. Similarly, the decision rendered by learnd Single Judges in - 45 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS case of KIRLOSKAR ELECTRICALS CO. PVT. LTD and BASHEERKHAN supra are of no assistance to the respondent No.3. The decision of the full bench in SMT JAYMMA AND OTHERS supra is an authority for the proposition that under Section 136(2) and (3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the revenue officials cannot decide the question involving the title and possession. The aforesaid decision has also no bearing on the issue involved in this appeal " 13. In contrast, counsel for the appellants submits that in view of the Gazette Notification, since the lands comes within the provision of BBMP since 2007 and the orders which were passed by the Deputy Commissioner be it in 2014 or 2022 or 2023 impugned therein are subsequent to the said Gazette notification, as such even for the sake of argument but without admitting, that though the nature of the lands have not been changed, the revenue authorities have lost their jurisdiction over the lands in view of jurisdiction now conferred and subjected to the BBMP and sought to dismiss the Writ Petition filed by petitioner in No.17208/2024 and quash the impugned - 46 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS notice/order issued by Tahsildar as non-est placing reliance on the Judgment of this Court in RFA No.1386/2003 decided on 17.12.2003 in the case of J.M.NARAYANA AND OTHERS VS. CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE AND OTHERS, stressing on Paragraph No.5 to contend that since the land was brought under the limits of Corporation, the Land Revenue Act would seize to have application. 14. Having considered the rival submissions, we have perused the affidavit filed by Tahsildar as well as Joint Commissioner, BBMP, we refrain ourselves from acceding to the contention raised by Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, to the effect that the Tahsildar earlier filed affidavit contrary to the affidavit filed on 09.04.2026 in these appeals. The affidavit filed by Tahsildar was under the contempt jurisdiction wherein the contempt proceeding was initiated for non-compliance of the order passed by this Court. The affidavit filed contending that proceedings have been initiated by issuing notice in compliance of the - 47 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS order cannot be considered as assumption of jurisdiction by the Revenue Authorities as the lands were made subject to the jurisdiction of BBMP under Gazette Notification way back in 2007. In that view of the matter, though the land even if it is stated to be remained as agricultural land, in view of the submission to the jurisdiction of BBMP, the Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to entertain any complaint or pass any orders under the provisions of KLR Act. 15. However in terms of the averment expressed in the affidavit filed by Joint Commissioner, BBMP stating that they are empowered under Section 243(3) and 244(1) of Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, to initiate action against unauthorized constructions, including issuance of notices and removal/demolition of such illegal structures and further the undertaking in the affidavit at Paragraph No.17 wherein the said officer has clearly stated that GBA undertakes to initiate and pursue appropriate action, in accordance with statutory provisions, against - 48 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS any unauthorized constructions existing on the schedule lands/ sites, if Katha is issued by BBMP/GBA, we are of the view that the Revenue Authorities have lost their jurisdiction to take any action either implementing earlier order from 2014-2022 or by means of issuing of notice and passing orders under the provisions of the KLR Act. In these circumstances, the Writ Appeals are disposed of modifying the order passed by the Writ Court, with observation that the BBMP may take action as provided in the provisions stated supra. As the action is contemplated by the BBMP, it answer the grievance of the petitioner in W.P.No.17208/2024. In that view of the matter, the actions contemplated under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 by the revenue authorities there under stands obliterated. 16. Further, in view of the disputed questions of fact raised by the parties and considering that the suit fled by the petitioners in W.P.No.17208/2024 are pending adjudication, the issues relating to title and possession are - 49 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB WA No. 1531 of 2024 C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024 WA No. 1532 of 2024 AND 2 OTHERS required to be determined by the competent Civil Court on full-fledged trial. In that view of the matter, the liberty reserved by the Writ Court in favor of the petitioners, whose petitions were dismissed is saved. 17. With the above observations, the Writ Appeals are disposed of. 18. In view of disposal of Writ Appeals, pending I.As if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4