Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 20161

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R Devdas, J
Sudha – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
WP No. 19280 of 2024 | WP No. 32912 of 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dhyan Chinnappa, Prasanna Deshpande
For the Respondents: Kempanna, V. Seshu, Shamanth Naik

Revisional jurisdiction, even in the absence of a prescribed limitation period, must be exercised within a reasonable time; delayed challenges to long-standing revenue entries are impermissible as they create uncertainty and prejudice third-party rights.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Section 136(3) - Revision of revenue entries - Delay and Laches - Invocation of revisional jurisdiction by State authorities after a lapse of nearly 40 years - The Court held that even where no period of limitation is prescribed, the power of revision must be exercised within a reasonable period to avoid uncertainty in human affairs and to protect third-party rights created based on revenue records. (Paras 17, 18, 23)

(B) Administrative Law - Scope of Authority - Revenue authorities are custodians of records, not custodians of government land - Claims regarding government land ownership must be initiated by the State, not by revenue authorities without proper authorization. (Paras 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought recognition of occupancy rights based on an order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition in 1966. Following the purchase and gift of the land, mutation entries were updated in the revenue records in 1990-91 and subsequent years. The State attempted to initiate suo motu proceedings to cancel these entries after several decades.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that there was documented evidence of the original grant by the Inams Abolition authority and that the state’s attempt to challenge the records after nearly 40 years was impermissible due to extreme, unexplained delay.

Issues: Whether the State can initiate proceedings to remove revenue entries after a significant lapse of time long after third-party rights have been created and whether revenue officers possess the authority to challenge these records without State authorization.

Ratio Decidendi: Any corrective power (revisional or otherwise) must be exercised within a reasonable period even if no statute of limitation exists. Removing long-standing entries in revenue records after 40 years lacks a rational basis and causes prejudice to bona fide purchasers.

Result: The writ petition filed by the State was dismissed, and the writ petition filed by the petitioners was allowed with directions to complete the phodi proceedings.

Table of Content
1. background of property grant and subsequent mutation entries. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. summary of rival contentions regarding land records and procedural standing. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. legal necessity of acting within a reasonable time period. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
4. impossibility of reopening settled records after decades of delay. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)

WRIT PETITION NO. 19280 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

C/W

WRIT PETITION NO. 32912 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

IN WP No. 19280/2024

BETWEEN:

1. MRS.SUDHA

WIFE OF LATE P BACHEGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

2. NAVEEN GOWDA

SON OF LATE P BACHEGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

3. VIDYA B

D/O LATE P BACHEGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 734,

BAGALUR, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,

BANGALORE-562 149

REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDERS

1) MRS. MALA RASTOGI,

WIFE OF ROHIT RASTOGI,

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

RESIDING AT 2031, TOWER 2,

SOBHA PALM COURT, MARUTHI NAGAR,

YELAHANKA, BANGALORE - 560 064

2) MR. VITTAL KOLLUR,

SON OF GURAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO. 639, 5TH CROSS,

8TH MAIN, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,

BANGALORE - 560 040

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA., SR. ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. PRASANNA DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

MS BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDI,

BANGALORE - 560 001

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,

KANDAYA BHAVANA,

BANGALORE PIN CODE-560 009

3. TAHASILDAR

YELAHANKA TALUK,

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

PIN CODE 560 063

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.KEMPANNA., AAG FOR

SRI. V. SESHU., HCGP )

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION FOR CONSIDERATION OF THEIR APPLICATION / REPRESENTATIONS, (AS PER ANNX-K AND L) BOTH DTD. 29.06.2024 FOR CORRECTION OF REVENUE RECORDS PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DTD. 01.04.2024 IN PROCEEDINGS NO. RRT(2)(N)CR/897/2008-09 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT (ANNX-H) AND FOR CARRYING OUT PHODI IN RESPECT OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY MOREFULLY EXPALINED IN THE SCHEDULED HERE BELOW PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DTD. 06.05.2024 IN ANNX-J AND ETC.

IN WP NO. 32912/2024

BETWEEN:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS

THE TAHASILDAR,

YELAHANKA TALUK

BENGALURU 560 064

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.KEMPANNA., AAG FOR

SRI. V. SESHU., HCGP )

AND:

1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION,

BENGALURU DISTRICT,

BENGALURU 560 009

2. SMT. M SUDHA

W/O LATE P BACHHEGOWDA

R/AT DASANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,

JALA HOBLI,

YELAHANKA TALUK,

BENGALURU

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP FOR R1;

SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA., SR. ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. PRASANNA DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R-1 DTD. 27.08.2024 IN CASE NO. RRT(2)(N)(A) CR.897/2008-09 PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND ETC.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

ORAL ORDER

1. These two writ petitions are in respect of the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner-3, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, in proceedings bearing No.RRT(2)(N)(A)CR/897/2008-09 dated 01.04.2024. Therefore, both these writ petitions were clubbed, heard together, and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The writ petition filed by the State of Karnataka in W.P.No.32912/2024 challenges the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, while the petitioners in W.P.No.19280/2024 are only seeking implementation of the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner and to carry out the phodi proceedings.

3. A brief background is required to be stated to understand as to why and how the proceedings were initiated before the Special Deputy Commissioner. According to the petitioners in W.P.No.19280/2024, one Sri D.Jayaram initiated the proceedings in No.INAPR35/1964-65 before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams abolit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 20161

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAR Devdas, JSudha – AppellantVersusState of Karnataka – RespondentWP No. 19280 of 2024 | WP No. 32912 of 2024

Revisional jurisdiction, even in the absence of a prescribed limitation period, must be exercised within a reasonable time; delayed challenges to long-standing revenue entries are impermissible as they create uncertainty and prejudice third-party rights.

Cases Referred (2)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R Devdas, J
Sudha – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
WP No. 19280 of 2024 | WP No. 32912 of 2024