Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. - W.P. Nos. 18681 to 18686 of 2013 are filed challenging the Government order dated 21-6-2007 (Annexure-C) giving the sanction for granting the land measuring 326 acres 18 guntas at Sy. No. 95 of Kanminke Village, consequential official memorandum dated 13-7-2007 (Annexure-D) issued by the Deputy Commissioner granting the said land and the commencement certificate dated 20-8-2010 (Annexure-E) permitting the change of land use and the work order dated 21-5-2012 (Annexure-F) issued by the Bangalore Development Authority ('BDA' for short) to the respondent 6. The petitioner in W.P. No. 46376 of 2013 claims to have perfected the title by way of adverse possession. He is ventilating similar grievances but with the additional prayer for a direction to the authorities to consider the petitioner's representation dated 3-10-2013 (Annexure-V) for protecting his land.

2. Sri V. Lakshminarayana, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Ajoy Kumar Patil for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the bona fide grantees of the lands in question. Each one of the petitioners is granted 2 acres of land. He submits that the saguvali chits are produced as Annexures-AG to AG5. He submits that pursuant to the official memorandum dated 22-5-1975 (Annexure-AF) issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner has sent his report dated 8-1-1975 (Annexure-AC). He also brings to my notice the sketch prepared by the authorities showing the extent of the land held by the petitioners. Its copy is at Annexure-AH. He submits that the (report of enquiry into claims)(Annexure-AJ) also indicates that each of the petitioners is granted 2 acres of land.

3. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the revenue records showed the names of the petitioners in the records from 1968 to 1993 in respect of the lands in question. He also brings to my notice that the petitioners have also paid the kimmat, as is evident from the receipts, the copies of which are produced as Annexures-N to N5.

4. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the impugned orders are making by total non-application of mind. They are issued without making a semblance of verification of the revenue records. He submits that a saguvali chit holder is a title holder only. He submits that as it is not in dispute that the petitioners are in possession of the lands in question, they cannot be dispossessed arbitrarily. He submits that no summary enquiry, much less an elaborate enquiry, has taken place in the matter.

5. Sri A.G. Shivanna, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 to 4 in both the petitions submits that the petitioners have produced only the Xerox copies of the documents. He submits that the darkasth register and the saguvali chit register do not contain the names of the petitioners, meaning that there has been no grant in their favour. He submits that the petitioners' names came to be deleted from the revenue records in 1993. The petitioners have not filed any appeal. The deletion of their names from the revenue records in respect of the lands in question have thus attained the finality.

6. He submits that the documents which the petitioners claim to have obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 are the copies of the documents which the petitioners themselves had given. Otherwise, the original documents corresponding to the documents produced by the petitioners are not therein the records.

7. He also complains of the delay and laches on the part of the petitioners. The orders passed in 2007 and 2010 are sought to be assailed in 2013.

8. He submits that the petitioners are set up by one Govindaraju. He submits that the said Govindaraju had earlier filed W.P. No. 18365 of 2012 (KLR-RES/PIL), dated 17-4-2013 (Govindaraju K.G. v. State of Karnataka) contending that the land in question is gomal land, that therefore it cannot be diverted for any other purpose and that it is being used for free pasturage. The sai