Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 4103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R Devdas, J
SMT. CHANNAMMA – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.28195 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO.19838 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO.22349 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jagadish N., Arunkumar M S, Subramanya R., Vijayakumar K.
For the Respondents: Shamanth Naik
The Assistant Commissioner lacks the authority to suo-motu delete names from revenue records under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; such powers are vested in the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3), and entries existing for over five decades cannot be arbitrarily removed.
Headnote:The petitioners challenged orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, which directed the deletion of their names from revenue records and the entry of the Government's name on the grounds that original grant records were unavailable. The court found that the Assistant Commissioner lacked the legal authority to pass such orders, as the revenue records had been maintained in the names of the petitioners or their predecessors for over five decades. The primary issue was whether the Assistant Commissioner possesses the authority under Section 136(2) of the Act to suo-motu delete names from revenue records. The court reasoned that suo-motu powers under Section 136(3) of the Act are exclusively exercisable by the Deputy Commissioner and not the Assistant Commissioner. Furthermore, the court held that long-standing revenue entries cannot be set aside without a formal process to cancel the grant, and such actions must be initiated within a reasonable time. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed setting aside the impugned orders at Annexure-A in all the three writ petitions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the assistant commissioner's authority in deleting revenue entries under section 136(2). (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. argument that suo-motu powers to revise revenue records are vested in the deputy commissioner, not the assistant commissioner. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. contention regarding the provision of an opportunity for a hearing. (Para 7) |
| 4. jurisdictional limitation of assistant commissioner and the requirement of reasonable time for revising long-standing entries. (Para 8) |
| 5. quashing of unauthorized orders and direction to restore revenue entries. (Para 9) |
Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18/03/2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN R.A.(A) NO.205/2018-19 (ANNEXURE-A) AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18/03/2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN R.A.(A) NO. 201/2018-19 (ANNEXURE-A) AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTIES; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18/03/2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN R.A.(A) NO.201/2018-19 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
1. In W.P.No.19838 of 2025, the learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for all the respondents.
2. Though the matters are listed for Preliminary Hearing, with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.
3. The grievance of the petitioner, common in all these writ petitions, are that the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division, who had no authority at all, has passed the impugned orders at Annexure-A in proceedings bearing No.RA (A) Nos. 201/2018-19 and 205 of 2018/19, by invoking powers under Section 136 (2) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, the 'Act'). By the said orders, the Assistant Commissioner has directed for deletion of the names of the petitioners from the revenue records and enter the name of the Government in Columns No.9 and 12(2) of the RTC.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that firstly, there is no such power vested with the Assistant Commissioner which can be invoked under Section 136(2) of the Act to delete the names of the petitioners, at the instance of the Thasildar, Anekal Taluk. A plain reading of the impugned order clearly shows that despite the revenue records, being maintained in the names of the petitioners, their forefathers or predecessors in title, it is contended by the Thasildar that the original entry made in the revenue records in favour of grantees is a wrong entry, there being no such grants made in favour of those persons.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that such orders could not have been passed by the Assistant Commissioner that too without issuing notice to the petitioners. Moreover, merely because the Thasildar, contends that original grant records are not available to show the entry of the name of the original grantees in the revenue records, it does not vest power with the Thasildar, or Assistant Commissioner to invoke Section 136(2) of the Act to delete the names of the petitioners from the RTCs/Revenue records and to enter the name of the Government. It is submitted that, if such powers, if at all relatable to Section 136(3) of the Act, which empowers the Deputy Commissioner, who may, on his own motion or on application filed by the party, call for and examine any records made under Section 127 and Section 129 of the Act and pass such orders as he may deem fit, provided that
