Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 28413
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1338 OF 2025 (KLR-LG)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1339 OF 2025 (KLR-LG)
IN WA No. 1338/2025:
BETWEEN:
SREE. SIDDAGANGA MUTT,
REPRESENTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
S. VISHWANATHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
SIDDANGANA MATA ROAD,
SIDDAGANGA KSHETRA,
TUMAKURU, KARNATAKA - 572 104.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SANJEEVINI PRABHULING NAVADGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE SPL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. TAHASILDAR,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
SRI. SEETHARAMAIAH,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
5. SRI. MANJESH K.S.,
S/O SEETHARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT KADARANHALLI VILALGE,
LAKSHMIPURA POST,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 562 123.
6. SRI. GOVINDAPPA,
S/O. LATE THIMMAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
7. SRI. KIRAN L.,
S/O. LAKSHMINARASIMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT:
KADARANAHALLI VILLAGE,
LAKSHMIPURA POST,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH,
BANGALORE - 562 123.
8. SRI. RAMANJINAPPA. K.V.,
S/O. LATE VENKATAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
9. SRI. SRINIVAS. K.V.,
S/O. LATE VENKATAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 9 ARE
RESIDING AT:
KADARANAHALLI VILLAGE,
LAKSHMIPURA POST,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT,
BANGALORE - 562 162.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W
SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE FOR
R5(A), R6, R7(A) R8 & R9)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT,1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:15.07.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P No.30695/2018 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,
IN WA NO. 1339/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REVENUE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE SPL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
K.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W
SRI. G.S. ARUNA HCGP)
AND:
1. SRI. SEETHARAMAIAH,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
1(a). SRI. MANJESH K.S.,
S/O. SEETHARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT:
KADARANHALLI VILLAGE,
LAKSHMIPURA POST,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 562 123.
2. SRI. GOVINDAPPA,
S/O. LATE. THIMMAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT:
KADARANHALLI VILLAGE,
LAKSHMIPURA POST,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 562 123.
3. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY LR
3(a) SRI. KIRAN. L.
S/O. LAKSHMINARASIMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KADARANHALLI VILLAGE,
LAKSHMIPURA POST,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 562 123.
4. SRI. RAMANJINAPPA K.V.,
S/O. LATE VENKATAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: KADARANHALLI VILLAGE,
LAKSHMIPURA POST,
DASANAPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 562 123.
5. SRI. SRINIVAS K.V.,
S/O. LATE VENKATAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: KADARANHALLI VILLAGE,
LAKSHMIPURA POST,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 562 123.
6. SIDDAGANGA MUTT,
REP. BY SIDDALINGASWAMIJI,
TUMAKURU - 572 104.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI SR. ADVOCATE
SRI. SANJEEVINI PRABHULING NAVADAGI,
ADVOCATE FOR R6,
SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4,
SRI. BIPIN HEGDE ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:15.07.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JDUGE IN WRIT PETITION No.30695/2018 (KLR-LG) BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISS WRIT PETITION No.30695/2018 (KLR-LG) FILED BY THE RESPONDENT Nos. 1 TO 5 AND ETC.,
THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prabhuling K. Navadgi, Sanjeevini Prabhuling Navadgi, Reuben Jacob, G.S. Aruna
For the Respondents: Bharath Kumar V., Bipin Hegde
The High Court should not adjudicate complex, disputed questions of title under Article 226. Furthermore, judicial orders procured through fraud, forgery, or concealment of material facts are a nullity, as fraud vitiates all solemn proceedings and disentitles a party from seeking equitable relief.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Jurisdiction - Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction - Adjudication of title dispute - High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, is not the appropriate forum for determining disputed questions of fact of a complex nature, particularly where title to immovable property is in serious dispute and authenticity of foundational documents is challenged. (Paras 20, 21, 22)
(B) Fraud - Vitiation of proceedings - Fraud unravels everything - Any order or judgment procured by playing fraud, concealment of material facts, or trickery on a Court, Tribunal, or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of the law - Fraud and justice never dwell together - Courts have a duty to nullify orders obtained through fraudulent means regardless of the stage of proceedings. (Paras 49, 50, 51)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners claimed a grant of land through alleged records from several decades prior, seeking a mandamus to conclude proceedings. The State and another entity challenged these claims, asserting that the land remained government property, had never been granted to the petitioners, and that the documents produced by the petitioners were fabricated, unsigned, and created as an afterthought using identical typing equipment. The lower authority had dismissed the claim, but the writ court initially allowed the petition.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the petitioners initially sought a direction to conclude proceedings, implying no grant existed. The sudden emergence of grant documents, which appeared fabricated and lacked official verification, indicated a fraudulent attempt to secure public land. The expert opinion confirmed that the documents were forged in a manner to suggest a singular origin, and the petitioners' own conduct revealed that the land remained vacant and uncultivated.
Issues: The main issues were whether in a writ petition the Court should entertain disputed questions of title and whether the petitioners were entitled to relief despite allegations of fabricating records to support a claim of land grant.
Ratio Decidendi: Judicial jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory rather than adjudicatory for private title disputes. When a claim is founded on documents that are demonstrated to be fabricated and the process involves playing fraud upon the Court to secure public property, the entitlement to equitable relief is extinguished. Fraud vitiates all solemn proceedings, and such claims must be dismissed.
Result: Appeals allowed; Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners' claims of land grant versus mutt's subsequent allotment. (Para 4) |
| 2. state's denial of grant and allegations of document fabrication. (Para 5) |
| 3. writ court's findings favoring petitioners based on disputed evidence. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. arguments on the non-sustainability of relying on fabrications and disputed facts. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. fraud vitiates judicial proceedings; appellate reversal of grant order. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K.SINGH)
These two intra-court appeals being W.A.Nos.1338/2025 and 1339/2025 are by respondent No.5-Mutt, respondent Nos.1 to 4 – State and its instrumentalities in W.P.No.30695/2018, assailing the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the writ court.
2. By means of impugned order the writ court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner Nos.1 to 5, set aside the Official Memorandum1For short hereinafter referred to as ‘OM’ dated 18.08.2010 issued by respondent No.2, so also the order dated 27.04.2018 passed in Appeal No.897/2011 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal2‘KAT’ for short and directed the jurisdictional Tahsildar to enter the name of petitioners in the revenue records in respect of the land in question forthwith. Further directed the respondents-State to allot an alternative suitable land in favour of the respondent No.5-Mutt in view of quashing of their OM dated 18.08.2010.
3. Parties are referred to as per their rankings before the writ court.
FACTS GERMANE TO FILE THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE AS UNDER:
4. The petitioners put forth their case before the writ court as under:
The petitioners claimed to be the grantees of land bearing Sy.No.41 of Kadaranahalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Pursuant to the application made by the petitioners seeking grant of land, the respondent No.2 - Special Deputy Commissioner in Proceedings No.LND(1)RHM.PR.1020/81-82 had proposed for grant of land in favour of the petitioners. Subsequent to said proposal, the respondent No.4-Tahsildar in proceedings No.LND.CR.374/81-82 had granted 3 acres of land to each of the petitioners and the same was communicated to respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner vide letter dated 31.07.1982 (Annexure-A). A survey sketch came to be prepared as per Annexure-B. As the petitioners belonged to Adi Karnataka community, though the upset price was fixed at Rs.1,000/- per acre, the same was waived. It was further contended that though the land was subjected to auction as per Notification dated 02.04.2007 issued by respondent No.2, however, the same was not concluded on the ground that the land in question was granted to the petitioners.
4.1 It was further contended by the petitioners that the respondent No.5 - Mutt made an application seeking allotment of land for the purpose of establishment of ‘Dasoha Prasada Distributing Centre’. The Government without considering the grant made in favour of the petitioners, had granted the very same land to an extent of 14 acres 25 guntas in favour of respondent No.5-Mutt by means of Government Order dated 27.05.2010 (Annexure-F) and the same came to be confirmed by the OM dated 18.08.2010 (Annexure-H) issued by the respondent No.2.
4.2 The petitioners aggrieved by the said action of the Government challenged the order as well as OM before the KAT in Appeal No.897/2011 granting 14 acres 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.41 of Kadaranahalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The KAT after considering the rival submissions and materials on record, by means of its order dated 27.04.2018 (Annexure-K) dismissed the appeal, which made the petitioners to approach this Court in present W.P.No.30695/2018.
4.3 Before the writ court it was argued on behalf of the petitioners that by means of a letter dated 31.07.1982 (Annexure-A) addr
