Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 17799
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 24112 OF 2018 (KLR-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 39150 OF 2016 (KLR-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 39151 OF 2016 (KLR-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 24113 OF 2018 (KLR-RR/SUR)
IN WP No. 24112/2018
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 009.…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. I. THARANATHA POOJARY, AAG FOR SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU – 560 009.
2. SHRI. CHIKKADODDAIAH S/O LATE DODDAIAH, MAJOR PILLAHALLI VILLAGE, D BE A N S G AN AL A U P R U U R A N H O O RT B H LI T –A L U K2 123. SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LR’s
2(a) MR. C RAJANNA S/O LATE CHIKKA DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
2(b) MR. C. LAKSHMANA S/O LATE CHIKKA DODDAIAH
2(c)A M G R E S D . L A A B K O S U H T M 6 A 0 M M YE A A RS S/O LATE CHIKKA DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
2(d) MR. NAGARAJU S/O LATE CHIKKA DODDAIAH A GED ABOUT 54 YEARS
2(e) MRS. NARAYANAMMA S/O LATE CHIKKA DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT BADAKNAPALYA PILLAHALLI DHAKALE, HUSKUR POST DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2(A) TO (E))
THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.09.2010 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT BEARING NO.RRT(2)(N) CR/18/2010-11 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 39150/2016
BETWEEN:
SRINIVASMURTHY.R S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT HONNADANDRA VILLAGE MATTHAHALLI POST DASANPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDINGS, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE – 560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT BANGALORE – 560 002.
4. THE TAHASILDAR BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT BANGALORE – 560 002....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. I. THARANATHA POOJARY, AAG FOR SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.06.2016 BEARING NO.RRT(BN) CR 60 / 16-17 PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 39151/2016
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. CHIKKA DODDAIAH S/O. LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R PI / L A L T A . H B A A L D L A I K D A H N A A K P A A L L E Y , A H , USKUR POST, DADANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LR’s
1(a) MR. C RAJANNA S A / G O E D LA A T B E O C U H T I K 5 K 8 A Y E D A O R D S D AIAH
1(b) MR. C. LAKSHMANA S/O LATE CHIKKA DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
1(c) MRS. LAKSHMAMMA S/O LATE CHIKKA DODDAIAH A GED ABOUT 52 YEARS
1(d) MR. NAGARAJU S/O LATE CHIKKA DODDAIAH
1(e) AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS MRS. NARAYANAMMA S/O LATE CHIKKA DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT BADAKNAPALYA PILLAHALLI DHAKALE, HUSKUR POST DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMETN, REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE – 560 002.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT BANGALORE – 560 002.
4. THE TAHASILDAR BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT BANGALORE – 560 002....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. I. THARANATHA POOJARY, AAG FOR SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.06.2016 BEARING NO.RRT(BN) CR 60/16-17 PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 24113/2018
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU – 9....PETITIONER
(BY SRI. I. THARANATHA POOJARY, AAG FOR SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU – 560 009.
2. SHRI. SRINIVASAMURTHY S/O LATE RAMAIAH, MAJOR HONNASANDRA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI – 562 123. BENGALURU NORTH TALUK....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.09.2010 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT BEARING NO.RRT(1)(N)CR/17/2010-11 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
COMMON ORDER
Since there are two writ petitions filed by the State calling in question the orders passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, in respect of two sets of lands and the owners of the two sets of lands have filed writ petitions challenging the order dated 10.06.2016 bearing No.Bhu.Jam.Ne/Thaam(1)Viva/31/2015 at Annexure ‘Q’ in W.P.No.39150/2016 and the order dated 10.06.2016 bearing No.Bhu.Jam.Ne/Thaam (1) Viva/30/ 2015 at Annexure ‘P’ in W.P.No.39151/2016, passed by the second respondent-Joint Director of Land Records, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru, these writ petitions have been clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
For the sake of convenience, the private writ petitioners in W.P.No.39150/2016 and W.P.No.39151/2016, shall be referred to as ‘writ petitioners’.
It would be necessary to state the brief background in which these writ petitions have been filed. It is not disputed that the names of the landowners/ writ petitioners are recorded in the revenue records and their names were continued in the computerized RTC till the impugned orders were passed by the Joint Director of Land Records and subsequently, action was taken by the Tahsildar to remove the names of the writ petitioners from the computerized RTCs. The contention of the State in both its writ petitions are that, although no grants were made in favour of the writ petitioners viz., Sri Srinivasmurthy and late Sri Chikka Doddaiah, who is now represented by his legal representatives, several records have been created, forged, fabricated and revenue records have been created.
Therefore, the Tahsildar moved the Special Deputy Commissioner to initiate suo motu proceedings under Section 136 (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) to delete the names of the petitioners from the revenue records and discontinue their names from the computerized RTCs. However, the Special Deputy Commissioner dropped the proceedings after having found that there is no truth in the contentions of the Tahsildar and the documents revealed otherwise. In the meanwhile, the petitioners had approached the Survey settlement authorities seeking phodi and durasth of the lands and assignment of new survey number. The Joint Director of Land Records proceeded to pass the impugned orders accepting the contention of the Tahsildar that there were no grants made in favour of the petitioners or their predecessors and directed the Tahsildar to remove the entries in the RTCs.
Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Udaya Holla appearing for the writ petitioners submitted that the Joint Director of Land Records had no jurisdiction to pass such an order, having regard to the fact that the petitioners had approached the Joint Director of Land Records for phodi and durasth and for assignment of new survey numbers to the properties belonging to the petitioners. The Joint Director of Land Records (for short ‘JDLR’) had no jurisdiction in the matter of the entries found in the RTCs. The Joint Director of Land Records is only concerned with the phodi proceedings, survey settlement, assignment of new survey numbers etc. It is beyond the jurisdiction of the JDLR to have issued such directions to the Tahsildar to discontinue the names of the petitioners from the revenue records.
Learned Senior Counsel submitted that this Court has held in the case of Smt.Pyari Ma Vs. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.22426/2021 dated 12.01.2022 that if action is sought to be initiated either suo motu or in exercise of power conferred under a statute, they shall be done within a reasonable time. This Court had referred to two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin Vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim (1997) 6 SCC 71 and Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District And Another Vs. D. Narsing Rao And Others (2015) 3 SCC 695 while concl
