IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 28209 OF 2025 (LR)

BETWEEN:

SRI. H.R. BASAVARAJU S/O LATE SRI. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O HEGGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 125.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAGADISH N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, Digitally REVENUE DEPARTMENT, signed by LAKSHMI T M.S. BUILDING, Location: BENGALURU–560 001.

High Court of Karnataka

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT–562 106.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU–560 009.

4. THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 106.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.03.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN R.A.(A) NO.204/2018-19 (ANNEXURE-A)

AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER’S PROPERTY; ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

ORAL ORDER

The learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for all the respondents.

2. Though the matter is listed for Preliminary Hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the High Court Government Pleader, the writ petition are taken up for final disposal.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division, who had no authority in law, has passed the impugned orders at Annexure-A in proceedings bearing No.RA (A) No.204/2018-19, by invoking powers under Section 136 (2) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, the 'Act'). By the said order, the Assistant Commissioner has directed for deletion of the name of the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 name of the petitioner, 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 petitioner further submits that such orders could not have been passed by the Assistant Commissioner that too without issuing notice to the petitioner. 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 is pursuant to a grant, it does not vest power with the Thasildar, or Assistant Commissioner to invoke Section 136(2) of the Act to delete the name of the petitioner from the RTCs/Revenue records and to enter the name of the Government. It is submitted that, if such powers, if at all are 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 no order shall be passed except after hearing the party, who would be adversely effected by such orders. No such suo-motu powers are vested with the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Act.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that in respect of the powers exercisable by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act, this court has consistently held that s