SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38843

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CHIEF JUSTICE AND K. V. ARAVIND
SRI MOHAMMED IKBAL – Appellant
Versus
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
RP 218/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND REVIEW PETITION No. 218 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION No. 23615/2022(KLR RR/SUR PIL)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI MOHAMMED IKBAL, ADVOCATE, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, No.305, 6/1 MAIN, V.V. NAGAR, R. T. NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 032.

(MOB: 9880368588)

E-MAIL: MDIKBAL1955@GMAIL.COM …PETITIONER Digitally signed by VALLI (BY SRI MOHAMMED IKBAL, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

MARIMU THU Location: HIGH COURT OF AND:

KARNATAKA

1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

2. COMMISSIONER FOR SURVEY &

SETTLEMENT, K. R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001.

3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, (REVENUE DEPT.) HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573201.

4. TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO DC AND EX OFFICIO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573201.

5. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SAKLESHPURA SUB DIVISION, SAKLESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573134.

6. TAHSILDAR, ARKALGUD TALUK, ARKALGUD, HASSAN DISTRICT, PIN 573102.

7. ASST. DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, ARKALGUD TALUK, ARKALGUD, HASSAN DISTRICT, PIN 573102.

8. TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, PIN 573102.

9. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAMAPANCHAYATH - RUDRAPATNA, ARKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DIST. 573 150.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S.HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R8)

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE

1 R/W SECTION 114 of CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGEMENT DATED 29.04.2025 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.23615/2022 (KLR RR/SUR PIL) AND CONSIDER THE PRAYER THEREIN.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

The present review petition has been filed by the petitioner [party-in-person] seeking review of the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.23615 of 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)PIL.

2. The review petitioner had filed the said petition praying that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents for proper survey and durast of 3 acres 10 guntas of Muslim burial ground in Survey No.27 of Rudrapatna Village, Hassan District, and to protect the said burial ground. The said petition was filed as a public interest litigation.

2.1 It was the grievance of the petitioner that a portion of the land of 3 acres 10 guntas, which the petitioner claimed was a Muslim graveyard, was being encroached upon. Additionally, it was stated that the villagers were using a part of the said land as a road. This Court had examined the said contentions and noted that the concerned authorities had found during the joint survey that there was an overlap of lands and a new Survey No.73 had been carved out of Survey No.27 without keeping the original Survey Nos.22, 23, 24 and 25 intact. It was found that the new Survey No.73 has overlapping boundaries.

3. For the aforesaid reason, the Joint Director of Regional Land Records, Mysore Division, had allowed the revision application and cancelled durast of Survey No.27, and new Survey No.73 was kept intact for use as the burial ground of a particular minority community.

4. It was found that 1 acre 08 guntas was in possession of a private party and it was not included in the subject land. Thus, the burial ground was spread over approximately two acres. The same also included 07 guntas of land on the Eastern edge of the land, which was being used by the villagers since several years for the purpose of accessing their lands.

5. The review petitioner who appears in person submits that the findings in the order are erroneous and the Court had not appreciated that there was encroachment on the subject land, which was granted for use as a burial ground.

6. We are unable to accept that there is any error apparent on the record. The review petitioner seeks to re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top