Sri G Sudhakar Rao v. State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 1010 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:

¶1SRI G SUDHAKAR RAO S/O LATE BALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT NO.43/1, SRI NIKETHAN, 5 CROSS, IST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SWAMY N B N.,ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.

¶2THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH TALUK AND BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK, DISTRICT OFFICES ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.

by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK, PRESENTLY YELAHANKA TALUK, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHAMANTH NAIK, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE OR QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED ON 20/12/2010 IN CASE NO. NACR/833/2019-10 (ANNEXURE-L) BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH AND NORTH (ADDITIONAL), BANGALORE, THE SECOND RESPONDENT DIRECTING THE R1 TO R3 OT TO CHANGE THE MUTATION ENTRIES OF THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER BEARING SURVEY NO. 43 OF DODDAJALA VILLAGE, JALA-1 HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN `B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL ORDER

In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 20.12.2010 (Annexure-L) passed by the respondent No.2 inter alia sought for direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3, not to change the mutation made in favour of the petitioner.

¶2In this writ petition, petitioner has stated that, the land bearing Sy. No.43 of Dodda Jala Village, Jala

Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk now Yelahanka Taluk, was a Government Gomal Land and the same was granted in favour of one Muniyappa as per the grant order dated

25.02.1985. It is also stated that, the Saguvali Chit has been issued in favour of the said grantee - Muniyappa, and thereafter, the revenue records stands in the name of the petitioner. It is also stated that, the petitioner had obtained the permission from the respondent No.2 herein to purchase the land in question, and accordingly, has deposited 50% of the market value on 17.10.1996 (Annexure - E), and thereafter purchased the land in question as per the registered sale dated 24.10.1996 (Annexure-G).

¶3It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the land in question has been converted as per the notification dated 28.04.2005 (Annexure-J) by the Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore District. However, the very same Authority has passed the impugned order at Annexure-L, stating that, the grant

made in favour of the vendor of petitioner is without any basis, and therefore, sought for interference in this writ petition. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to the judgment of this Court in WA No.312/2021 dated 22.09.2021 (Annexure - M3) and submitted that, the impugned order requires to be set aside.

¶4Per contra, Sri Shamanth Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that, by referring to the averments made in the writ petition that, the land in question was granted in favour of the vendor of the petitioner, and does not find place in the original records of the respondent - Authorities, and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶5In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on perusal of the writ papers would indicate that, the land in question

was granted in favour of one Muniyappa (vendor of the petitioner) as per the grant order dated 25.02.1985, and thereafter, Sagavali Chit was issued to the vendor of the petitioner as per Annexure - B. It is also to be noted that, mutation has been made in favour of the original grantee in MR No.11/85-86 (Annexure - C) and thereafter, the original grantee has made an application to sell the land in question as there is a clog in the grant order as to non-alienation for a period of fifteen years. In this regard, the respondent - Authorities have passed an order, and permitted the original grantee - Muniyappa to sell the schedule property, and in this regard, have imposed the cost of 50% of the market value, and same has been deposited before respondent No.2 as per Annexure - E. Thereafter, the petitioner herein had purchased the land in question from the original grantee - Muniyappa as per registered sale deed dated 24.10.1996 (Annexure - G).

¶6In that view of the matter, as the land in question has been granted in favour of Muniyappa way

back in the year 1985, the respondent - Authorities have initiated the proceedings under Section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, after lapse of two decades. It is also forthcoming from the writ petition that, the entire land in question has been converted as per the notification dated 28.04.2005 (Annexure-J).

¶7In that view of the matter, following the declaration of law made by this court in WA No.312/2021 dated 22.09.2021, the impugned order dated 20.12.2010 (Annexure-L), passed by respondent No.2 is accordingly quashed.

¶8It is needless to say that, the revenue entries has to be continued in the name of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46