Sri. Kishore Kumar Prasad v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 6511 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:

¶1SRI. KISHORE KUMAR PRASAD S/O LATE K.R.PRASAD AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO. 638, MATHRU CHAAYA 2ND FLOOR, 2ND CROSS 2ND MAIN, NEAR PAPAIAH KALYANA MANTAPA BEML 3RD STAGE, RR NAGAR BENGALURU-560098

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIGNESHWAR S SHASTRI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. BHASKAR GOWDA, N.M., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU 560 001.

¶2THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU 560 009.

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BENGALURU 560 009.

¶4THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU 560 009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SKANDA R.K. RAO, AGA)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO EFFECT MUTATION AND ISSUE RTC BY ENTERING THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO SY NO.35 MEASURING 2 ACRES SITUATED AT B.M.KAVAL VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU AS PER THE ORDER DATED 30.04.2024 PASSED IN RA(S)/174/2024-25 ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION AS PER REPRESENTATION DATED 17.09.2024 ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL ORDER

¶1Heard Sri. Vigneshwar S. Shastri, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri. Bhaskar Gowda N.M.,

learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Skanda R.K. Rao, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶2Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not pressing prayer-A.

¶3Having taken note of the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate, wherein the senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in W.P.No.5985/2016 disposed of on 05.04.2016, and submitted that under similar circumstances, this court had quashed the impugned notification produced at Annexure-A. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this court.

¶4Per contra, Sri. Skanda R.K. Rao, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State sought to justify the impugned communication and also sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶5Having heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned AGA for respondents, and on careful consideration of the same would indicate that the petitioner is claiming right over the land bearing survey No.35 of B.M.Kaval Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore-South Taluk, Bengaluru, which is the land granted in favour of the original grantee Nazeer Pasha s/o Abdul Khadar. Accordingly, the Land Grant Committee by its meeting held on

06.07.1999 has passed an order to grant the land in favour of the original grantee. Accordingly, the saguvali chit dated 06.08.2007 (Annexure-C) issued in favour of the original grantee.

¶6In that view of the matter, since the revenue records stand in the name of the original grantee and thereafter the petitioner herein has subsequently purchased the land in question as per the registered sale deed dated

16.01.2024 (Annexure-F), petitioner is placed under similar circumstances. This

Court in W.P.No.9470/2020 disposed of on

13.07.2026, held at paragraphs 10 and 11, reads as follows:

¶10In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful consideration of the writ papers would indicate that, petitioners are in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.132 of the B. M. Kaval village, Bangalore South Taluk, as unauthorised occupants. The respondent No.4-Thasildar, after conducting preliminary enquiry and identification of the location of the land in question, has reported with the sketch to the competent Committee to take decision for regularisation of unauthorised occupants. The Committee vide Resolution dated

24.11.1997 considered the Form No. 53 filed by the petitioners as per Rule 108-C(2) of the Rules, 1966 and recommended for grant of land to petitioners. Copy of the Resolution of the Committee dated 24.11.1997 is produced at Annexure-B. Thereafter, the Saguvali Chits were issued by the competent authority in favour of the petitioners as per Annexures-C1 to C3 series. The petitioners have also produced the mutation entry made in favour of them as per Annexures-C4 in respect of subject land.

RTC extracts are produced at Annexure-C5 to C10, would indicate that, name of the petitioners or their ancestors are reflected in the RTC extracts and therefore, the entire revenue records stands in the name of the petitioners. Perusal of Annexure-D, letter addressed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Zilla Panchayat Technical Sub-Division, Bangalore South Taluk, to the Executive Engineer, Zilla Panchayat Technical Sub-Division, Bangalore, would indicate that, the B.M Kaval village is around 28 kms from the limits of BBMP.

¶11It is forthcoming from the writ petition that, proceedings in LND RUC(S) 1/2003-04 was initiated against the petitioners at the instance of the complaint filed by one Ashwath Naik and others and the respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 26.07.2004 (Annexure-F), directed for resumption of the land made in favour of the petitioners. Perusal of the finding recorded therein, would indicate that the land in question is beyond 15 kms and the letter dated 06.12.1997, addressed by the Thasildar to the Committee envisages that the land in question is situate beyond 18 kms. It is also to be noted that the letter dated 27.03.1997 by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Zilla Panchayat, reported that distance of B.M.Kaval from BMP as 19 kms., and from the central of office of BBMP, it is 28

kms. However the said order passed by respondent No.3, was quashed by the respondent No. 2, as per order dated 15.07.2005 Annexure-G. The respondent No.2, after considering provisions contained under Section 94-A(4) of the Act, 1964, has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the distance has to be considered as on the date of the applications made by the grantees. Taking into consideration the Notification dated

16.01.2007, (Annexure-H), wherein, the Kengeri City Municipal Corporation was formed and as such the distance taken by the respondent-authorities is contrary to law and the Rules.

¶7Following the aforementioned judgment of this Court and order dated 05.04.2016 in W.P.No.5985 of 2016, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned communication dated

12.03.2023, issued by Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk as per Annexure-J are hereby set aside.

iii. Insofar as land belonging to petitioner is concerned, respondent No.4 is directed to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. Consequently, any modifications made thereunder pursuant to the impugned order are also set aside. iv. Pending IA(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

SKS List No,:1 Sl No.:14