PRAMOD DHARMAPPA SHOBHA vs THE TAHASILDAR
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
R
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1531 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1505 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1532 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1611 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1660 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
IN WA No. 1531/2024
BETWEEN:
MRS. C PARIMALA,
W/O. LATE SHIVANNA
D/O. LATE CHANNAKRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
TH
R/AT FLAT NO.235 6 MAIN ROAD,
SAINIK VIHAR LAYOUT,
KENCHANAHALLI, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVANANDA D S., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
REKHA R
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
AND:
1. THE TAHASILDAR,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
YELAHANKA UPANAGARA,
BEGALURU - 560 064.
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
2. AZMATH ULLA KHAN,
S/O IBRAHIM KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RA NO.17/A, H CROSS ROAD,
BISMILLA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 029.
3. G. VENKATARAMANA,
S/O LATE G.C.K. SOMAYAJI,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NO.295, "PADMAKALA"
I MAIN, VIDYAPEETHA ROAD,
BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.D.R. RAVISHANKAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SARAVANA S.,ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 AND R3,
SRI. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED:26/09/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.19011/2024 IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WA NO. 1505/2024
BETWEEN:
1. MR. SOHANLAL JOSHI,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O LATE DALLARAM JOSHI,
R/AT NO. 123, 124,
SAINIK VIHAR LAYOUT,
KENCHAMAHAL,
YELLAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVA SHANKAR C., ADVOCATE)
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
2.
THE TAHSILDAR,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
YELAHANKA UPANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
3. RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER
R/AT A SECTOR,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
4. MR. AZMATH ULLA KHAN,
S/O IBRAHIM KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 17/A,
H CROSS ROAD,
BISMILAH NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SARAVANA. S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R4,
SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2,
SRI. RAGHAVANA PARTHASARATHY,
ADVOCATE FOR R3,
SRI. B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR
PSD IMPLEADEING R5)
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW
THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE
THE JUDGEMENT PASSED IN WP NO.18606/2024
DATED:26.09.2024 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION
NO.18606/2024 BY ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED:10.01.2023
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN ALN(Y)R/10/2022-
23 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.
IN WA NO. 1532/2024
BETWEEN:
PRAMOD DHARMAPPA SHOBHA,
S/O RAVIKANTH S.S. GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEAR,
R/AT FLAT NO.C106,
ARUN PATIOS APARTMENT,
KENCHANAHALLI,
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVANANDA D S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE TAHSILDAR,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
YELAHANKA UPANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
2. AZMATH ULLA KHAN,
S/O IBRAHIM KHAN,
AGED 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.17/A,
H CROSS ROAD,
BISMILLA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 029.
3. G. VENKATARAMANA,
S/O. LATE. G.C.K. SOMAYAJI,
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NO.295 'PADMMAKALA',
ST
1 MAIN VIDYAPEETHA ROAD,
BSK III STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SARAVANA. S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 AND R3,
SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT,1961, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:26.09.2024 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP
No.19012/2024, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN WA NO. 1611/2024
BETWEEN:
RADHIKA K.B.,
W/O MR P.N. BALAJI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. NS3/C ,
TH
14 WARD, OFFICIAL COLONY,
OPP. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA,
HOSAPETE, KARNATAKA - 583 225.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. T. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
BENGALURU,
YELAHANKA TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
4. AZMATULLA KHAN
S/O IBRAHIM KHAN,
AGED MAJOR
KENCHENAHALLI VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SARAVANA. S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R4,
SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:26.09.2024 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.13659/2024(KLR-RES)
AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE WP NO.13659/2024(KLR-
RES)AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS DEEMED
NECESSARY.
IN WA NO. 1660/2024
BETWEEN:
1. MR. SOHANLAL JOSHI,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O. LATE DALLARAM JOSHI,
R/AT NO.123, 124,
SAINIK VIHAR LAYOUT,
KENCHAMAHALL,
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
YELLAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.T.PRAKASH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN,
CAUVERY BHAVAN,
K.G. ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4.
TAHSILDHAR,
NES OFFICE ROAD,
SUGAPPA LAYOUT,
EAST COLONY,
YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
6. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
7. SRI. AZMATH ULLAH KHAN,
S/O LATE IBRAHIM KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
C/O. NO.295, FIRST MAIN,
OPP. VIS CO-OP BANK,
RD
BSK 3 STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085.
8. G. VENKATARAMANA,
S/O G.C.K. SOMAYAJI,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
ST
NO. 295, 1 MAIN,
VIDYAPEETA ROAD,
RD
BSK 3 STAGE, BANGALORE -560 085.
9. UMAVENKAT
W/O G. VENKATARAMANA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
ST
NO.295, 1 MAIN,
VIDYAPEETA ROAD,
RD
BSK 3 STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 085.
10. MRS. LALITHA KUMARI,
W/O K.P. PALAKSHA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT SRIRANGA NILAYA,
TH
4 WARD, TANK ROAD,
RAJIPURA DODDABALLAPURA,
BANGALORE RURAL,
BENGALURU - 561 203.
11. MR. SHIVARAJ M.,
S/O MUNINARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.1700/14,
TH
C-BLOCK, 27 CROSS,
TH
7 MAIN, SAHAKARANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 092.
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
12. SARAVANANA K.,
S/O SRI C. KATHIRVEL,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
NO.31/A GROUND FLOOR,
VASANTHA NILAYAM,
TH
5 'A' CROSS,
SHANBOUGH LAYOUT,
DODDAREKUNDI,
BENGALURU - 560 037.
13. MOHAMMED TAZIM RAWAT,
S/O MAJOR ATEEQ MOHAMMED,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
ST
1 FLOOR, MUKUND APARTMENT,
PALM GRAND ROAD,
VICTORIA LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 047.
14. SMT. VEENA H.
W/O LATE NARAGANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
NO.16/7 SESHADRI NILAYA,
HALLAPANAHALLI,
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL,
BENGALURU - 562 114.
15. N SONNAPPA,
S/O LATE NARAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
KUNDANA VILLAGE,
DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL,
BENGALURU.
16. P. CHANDRASHEKHAR,
S/O LATE PURUSHOTHAM NANDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
NO.23/1, FLAT NO.E2,
ND
2 FLOOR LOTUS HEIGHTS,
RD
3 MAIN ROAD,
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
SULTAN PALYA MAIN ROAD,
NEAR SBI, R.T. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
17.
MS. GOWHAR UNNISA,
D/O SYED ABDUL RAHAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
NO.12-1-2H, T.B. CROSS,
T.B. EXTENTION,
RAMANAGARAM - 562 159.
18. SHAZIA SULTANA,
W/O JAVEEDULLA KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
NO.39, DOOR NO.003,
HOSUR ROAD, SENAN TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 046.
19. BABY MISHRA,
W/O RAJGURU,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.247/217,
SAINIK VIHAR 40,
KENCHANAHALLI,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
20. THYAGARAJULU,
S/O SRI, K. DORAISWAMY,
NAIDU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO.140, SAINIK VIHAR,
KENCHANAHALLI,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
21. MR. VENKARARATNAM NAIDU,
S/O LATE MARAKONDA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT 137, 138, SAINIK VIHAR 40,
KENCHANAHALLI,
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
22. P. GEETHA,
W/O NEERAJAKSHILU,
NAIDU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO.107, SAINIK VIHAR 40,
KENCHANAHALLI,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
23. R. VANITHA,
W/O LATE R. RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.100, 103,
SAINIK VIHAR 40,
KENCHANAHALLI,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
24. K. SRIDHAR,
S/O K. CHENNIALA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
NO.108, 108A,
SAINIK VIHAR 40,
KENCHANAHALLI,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
25. LINDON JOHSON,
S/O JOHN WILSON,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT 143/144, SAINIK VIHAR 40,
KENCHANAHALLI,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
26.
PURUSHOTHAM NAIDU,
S/O LATE PARIJATHAMA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
NO.106, SAINIK VIHAR 40,
KENCHANAHALLI,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
27. R. NAGARAJ,
S/O LATE RAMA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
NO.105A, SAINIK VIHAR 40,
KENCHANAHALLI,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SRI.SARAVANA.S, ADVOCATE FOR C/R7 TO 9;
SRI.M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 TO 6;
SRI.B.S.KARTHIKEYAN,ADVOCATE FOR PSD R28)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW
THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE
THE JUDGEMENT PASSED IN WP NO.17208/2024
DATED:26.09.2024 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR FINAL 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
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M. NADAF)
These batch of intra Court appeals are filed calling in
questioning the common order dated 26.09.2024 in
W.P.No.13659/2024 C/w. W.P.Nos.17208/2024,
18606/2024, 19011/2024 & 19012/2024 passed by the
Writ Court.
2. Under the impugned order, the Writ court
allowed W.P.No.17208/2024 and ordered Writ of
Mandamus to respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Yalahanka,
Bengaluru to implement the order/notice dated
10.01.2023. However, dismissed W.P.Nos.13659/2024,
18606/2024, 19011/2024 & 19012/2024 reserving liberty
to the petitioners therein to establish their right in respect
of the subject land/sites before the competent civil Court,
in terms of the finding recorded by the Trial Court in
O.S.No.665/2007 and connected suits.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking
in W.P.No.17208/2024.
4. Facts germane to file these appeals are as
under:
(i) W.P.Nos.13659/2024, 18606/2024, 19011/2024 &
19012/2024 were filed challenging the impugned
order/notice dated 01.08.2023 and 10.01.2023
respectively issued by respondent - Tahsildar,
Yalahanka Hobli, Bengaluru, where under the
Tahsildar has ordered to vacate/remove the
encroachment of land made by the unauthorized
residents under Section 192A of the Karnataka Land
1
Revenue Act, 1964 , on the premise that the land
was being used illegally for non-agriculture purposes.
So far as W.P.No.17208/2024 is concerned, it was
filed seeking implementation of the order dated
10.01.2023.
1
for short, 'the KLR Act'
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
(ii) The contention of the petitioner in
W.P.No.13659/2024 is that, he has purchased two
schedule sites from one S.K.Mayiappa under
registered Sale Deeds dated 27.07.2017 and
28.06.2017 (Annexures-C and D) carved out of
Sy.No.34 of Kenchenahalli Village, Yalahanka Hobli,
Bengaluru. As per the petitioner, the sites are
situated in a layout named as 'Sainik Vihar Layout'. It
is his case that the respondent - Tahsildar has no
jurisdiction to initiate proceedings since the schedule
sites are within the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bengaluru
2
Mahanagara Palike and as such, provisions
contained under the KLR Act are not made applicable
to the land in dispute. Accordingly, he sought to set-
aside the order impugned at Annexures-A and B by
allowing the Writ Petition.
(iii) So far as petitions in W.P.Nos.18606/2024,
19011/2024 & 19012/2024 are concerned, they are
2
for short, 'the BBMP'
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
more or less similar to the case in
W.P.No.13659/2024. The petitioners in these
petitions are the purchasers of site in the layout
stated supra challenging the very same notice/order
dated 10.01.2023.
(iv) The case of the petitioners in W.P.No.17208/2024 is
that the land bearing Sy.No.33/1 to an extent of 02
Acres 10 Guntas and land bearing Sy.No.33/3 to an
extent of 02 Acres and land bearing Sy.No.33/5 to an
extent of 01 Acre 33 Guntas, totally an extent of 06
Acres 13 Guntas originally belonged to one
Mariyappa and petitioner No.1 had purchased the
said properties as per the registered Sale Deeds at
Annexures-A1, A2 and A3. It is contended that
petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have purchased the land
bearing Sy.No.33/5 to an extent of 01 Acre 33
Guntas from petitioner No.1 as per registered Sale
Deed dated 20.11.2023 (Annexure-B) and in respect
of remaining extent of land bearing Sy.No.33/1,
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
measuring 02 Acres 10 Guntas and land bearing
Sy.No.33/3 measuring 02 Acres, they petitioner No.1
has executed registered General Power of Attorney
dated 17.06.2022 in favor of petitioner No.2
authorizing him to look after the entire affairs of the
land.
(v) It is their case that the erstwhile owner of the
property - Mariyappa died on 14.07.2010. It is
contended that, one Saleem has forged the General
Power of Attorney of late Mariyappa and created
dubious sale deed in respect of fifteen persons, who
filed a suit in O.S.No.665/2007 and other connected
suits against the vendor of the petitioners and the
said suits came to be dismissed and no further
proceedings taken against the said judgment and
decree and have attained finality.
(vi) The petitioners further contended that they have filed
a suit in O.S No.125/2020 before the Civil Court
against the persons who were interfering with the
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
peaceful possession of the suit schedule property as
per Annexure-E, seeking a declaration with
consequential relief of injunction. It is their further
case that the said interference has been brought to
the notice of respondent No.2 - jurisdictional Deputy
Commissioner, complaining about the unauthorized
encroachment. In furtherance of the same,
respondent No.2 has issued an order dated
04.01.2022 directing respondent No.4 - Tahsildar to
take action against the unauthorized encroachment
made in respect of the schedule properties. In turn,
respondent No.4 Tahsildar addressed letters to the
Joint Commissioner, Yelahanka Sub-Division,
respondent No.5 -Station House Officer, Yelahanka
Town Police Station and to the Executive Engineer,
BESCOM, Yelahanka and sought police protection to
remove illegal encroachments made by persons as
per the allegations of the petitioners.
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
(vii) It is their further case that when the order of
respondent - revenue authority was sought to be
implemented, an association of persons by name
"Sainik Vihar Site/House Owners Welfare Association"
filed W.P.No.2074/2023, seeking to quash the order
dated 10.01.2023 (Annexure-F) and this Court vide
order dated 23.06.2023, dismissed the petition
(Annexure-H) on the ground that the Society has no
locus standi , but observed in Paragraph No.3 that if
anybody is to be evicted pursuant to the impugned
order, the same will be done only after affording
them an opportunity of hearing.
(viii) It is further averred in the Writ Petition that since
there is continuous interference by encroachers, the
petitioners approached respondent Nos.4 and 5 to
take action against the encroachers and filed
complaint against which an endorsement came to be
issued, relegating them to file Civil suit since the
dispute is civil in nature. Aggrieved by the same, the
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
petitioners presented the Writ Petition seeking a
Mandamus against respondent No.4 to implement the
order dated 10.01.2023.
(ix) During the pendency of the petitions, certain
applicants filed impleading applications claiming to be
the members of the aforesaid society/Welfare
association in I.A.Nos.2/2024 to 5/2024, which came
to be allowed and they were impleaded as
respondents and they opposed the implementation of
the order dated 10.01.2023 which is the impugned
order in other connected Writ Petitions.
(x) The Writ Court after completion of pleadings, heard
Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri. Saravana S., for the
petitioners in W.P.No.17208/2024 and respondent
Nos.2 and 3 in W.P.No.19011/2024, and in
W.P.No.19012/2024; Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Venkatesh
Murthy.G.R, for the petitioner in W.P.No.13659/2024
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
and respondent Nos.7 to 15 in W.P.No.17208/2024;
Sri.Abhinav.R., learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.4 in W.P.No.13659/2024 and in
W.P.No.18606/2024; Smt.Pramila Nesargi, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
Sri.Muniswamy Gowda.S.G. for the petitioner in
W.P.No.18606/2024 and for respondent Nos.16 to 25
in W.P.No.17208/2024; Sri.Shivananda.D.S., learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner in
W.P.No.19011/2024 and in W.P.No.19012/2024;
Sri.Raghava Parthasarathy and Sri.Vivek Ravi
Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.3 in W.P.No.18606/2024 and
Sri.Hanamanthray Lagali, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-
Government.
(xi) Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.17208 of
2024 and for the respective respondents in other writ
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
petitions argued that originally the land bearing
Sy.Nos.33 and 34 of Kenchenahalli village, Yalahanka
Hobli, Bengaluru, belongs to one S.K.Mariyappa who
died intestate leaving behind his wife and son,
namely Smt.Gowri and Sri.Manoj, who stated to have
sold the sites in favor of one Ramlal Sharma. He also
argued that one Mohammed Salim, had formed a
residential layout, including the sites in question
claimed by the petitioners in the remaining Writ
Petitions, illegally. The owners of said sites filed
various suits in OS No.665/2007 and other connected
suits, which came to be dismissed on 31.07.2021 on
merits (Annexure-D). The aforesaid suits were filed
for bare injunction.
(xii) Learned Senior counsel, referring to paragraphs 53,
54 and 55 of the judgment of the Trial Court passed
in O.S No.665/2007 and connected suits argued that,
the Trial Court dismissed the suits as the relief of
injunction simpliciter is not maintainable and directed
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
the plaintiffs therein to file a suit for declaration with
consequential relief of injunction. However, the said
plaintiffs in those suits have not filed any suits till
today for declaration and consequential relief of
injunction. As such, the Writ Petition filed by said
persons under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
are not maintainable.
(xiii) Learned Senior counsel further referring to paragraph
No.59 of the Judgment contended that, there is a
categorical finding by the Trial Court that the
plaintiffs have not produced any materials relating to
their possession in respect of the suit schedule
properties therein, as such the Writ Petitions seeking
Certiorari challenging the order dated 10.01.2023
passed by the respondent Tahsildar are not
maintainable. He also submitted that, the petitioners
in W.P.No.17208/2024 are basing their claim on the
registered Sale Deeds produced at Annexure-A and B
series and the same would establish the ownership in
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
respect of the subject land and accordingly, sought
mandamus by way of direction to the Tahsildar to
implement the order dated 10.01.2023 as there is
persistent interference and encroachment.
(xiv) He further submitted that in view of 300A of the
Constitution of India, there is infringement of
constitutional right guaranteed and the Revenue
Authorities being the Statutory Authorities, are duty
bound to safeguard the interest of the petitioners, in
view of the direction by the Deputy Commissioner to
the Tahsildar to take action against the illegal
encroachers under the provisions of KLR Act. He also
submitted that in view of dismissal of
O.S.No.665/2007 and other connected suits, the
plaintiffs who are the petitioners in other connected
Writ Petitions cannot maintain the Writ Petitions
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by
placing reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
PATHAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND
3
OTHERS .
(xv) Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, further submitted that both the
petitioner as well as contesting respondents are
claiming right in respect of the said land on the basis
of sale deeds. His contention is, the petitioners in
W.P.No.17208/2024 are claiming right through one
Shamsundar R.Bhatija who had purchased the
schedule land from S.K.Mariyappa under registered
Sale Deed dated 20.01.1996. The petitioners are
purchasers from Shamsundar R.Bhatija, as such the
sale deed by the petitioner prevails over the
registered sale deeds claimed by the other
petitioners in connected Writ Petitions. In this regard,
he placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme
Court in UMADEVI NAMBIAR VS. THAMARASSERI
ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE REPRESENTED BY
TIS PROCURATOR DEVSSIA'S SON REV. FATHER
3
(2013) 4 SCC 465
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
4
JOSEPH KAPPIL and in the case of PADHIYAR
PRAHLADJI CHENAJI (DECEASED) THROOUGH
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES VS. MANIBEN
JAGMALBHAI (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL
5
REPRESENTATIVES AND OTEHRS . Accordingly,
sought indulgence of the Writ Court for issuance of
Mandamus to the concerned Revenue Authorities to
remove the encroachments/ illegal interference made
by the petitioners in the connected Writ Petitions.
(xvi) In contrast, Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner in
W.P.No.13659/2024 and respondents in
W.P.No.17208/2024 argued that W.P.No.17208/2024
is not maintainable on the ground that the petitioners
therein have filed O.S.No.125/2020 and
O.S.No.126/2020 seeking declaration and same is
pending consideration before the Trial Court as Civil
4
(2022) 7 SCC 90
5
(2022) 12 SCC 128
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
disputes and in these circumstances, parallel
proceedings in Writ Petition is not maintainable.
Emphasizing on Paragraph No.3 of the order dated
26.03.2023 in W.P.No.2074/2023, he contended that
the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner in
W.P.No.17208/2024 is not maintainable and required
to be dismissed in view of the pending suits as the
prayer sought is same and in terms of provisions
contained under the Karnataka Town and Country
Planning Act, 1961, the revenue authorities have no
jurisdiction to interfere with the schedule lands and
only the Planning Authority is empowered to set-right
things and placed reliance on the order dated
10.12.2021 in W.P.No.40157/2014 and sought to
reject W.P.No.17208/2024.
(xvii) Smt.Pramila Nesargi, learned Senior counsel
appearing for petitioner in W.P.No.18606/2024 and
for respondent Nos.16 to 25 in W.P.No.17208/2024
contended that the order dated 10.01.2023 is non-
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
est and the petitioner in the aforesaid petition has
filed a suit in O.S.No.25493/2007 before the
competent Civil Court against one Abdul Rafeeq
Ahmed, which came to be decreed vide Judgment
and Decree dated 08.02.2008 and therefore the
petitioner has established his right in respect of the
subject site and accordingly, sought for interference
of the Court in the impugned order.
(xviii) The said argument was countered by
Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior counsel for
respondent No.3 and Sri.R.Abhinav, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.4. Learned Senior
counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent
No.4 in unison submitted that the petitioner filed the
suit O.S.No.25493/2007 seeking permanent
injunction, which came to be decreed ex-parte on
08.02.2008 against one Abdul Rafeeq Ahmed,
however the suit schedule property has been sold by
Sri.S.K.Mariyappa in favor of Sri.Shamsundar
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
R.Bathija on 20.01.1996 much prior to the purchase
of subject site by the petitioner in
W.P.No.18606/2024 and therefore, the Writ Petition
itself is not maintainable and sought to dismiss the
Writ Petition.
(xix) Sri.Abhina.R, with reference to his contention
regarding non-maintainability of the Writ Petition
relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN
AYURVEDIC SCIENSES AND ANOTHER VS.
6
BIKARTAN DAS AND OTEHRS and argued that
W.P.No.18606/2024 is liable to be dismissed as no
ground has been made out for interference by this
Court to protect the civil rights of the parties.
(xx) Sri.Hanamanthray Lagali, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the respondent -
Government justified the impugned notice/order
6
2023 SCC ONLINE SC 996
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
passed by the Tahsildar and sought to dismiss the
Writ Petitions.
5. The Writ Court after considering the rival
submissions, having found that there are disputed
question of facts involved in the Writ Petition with regard
to relief claimed by the parties and in view of the settled
position of law, the Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, dismissed
W.P.Nos.13659/2024, 18606/2024, 19011/2024 &
19012/2024, however liberty was reserved to the
petitioners therein to establish their right in respect of the
subject land/sites before the competent Civil Court, in
terms of the finding recorded by the Trial Court in
O.S.No.665/2007 and connected suits. However, allowed
W.P.No.17208/2024 and directed respondent No.4 -
Tahsildar, Yalahanka, Bengaluru to implement the
order/notice dated 10.01.2023. It is this common order
passed by the Writ Court in connected Writ Petitions is
called in question in this batch of appeals.
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
6. Heard, Sri.Shivananda.D.S, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.1531/2024 and
W.A.No.1532/2024, Sri.M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent
No.1 in W.A.No.1531/2024; for respondents 1 and 2 in
W.A.No.1505/2024; for respondent No.1 in
W.A.No.1532/2024; for respondents 1 to 3 in
W.A.No.1611/2024; and for respondents 1 to 6 in
W.A.No.1660/2024, Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior
counsel appearing for Sri.Saravana.S, for
caveator/respondents 2 and 3 in W.A.No.1531/2024; for
caveator/respondent No.4 in W.A.No.1505/2024; for
caveator/respondents 2 and 3 in W.A.No.1532/2024; for
caveator/ respondent No.4 in W.A.No.1611/2024; and for
caveator/ respondents 7 to 9 in W.A.No.1660/2024,
Sri.Shiva Shankar.C, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant in W.A.No.1505/2024, Sri.Raghavan
Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.3 in W.A.No.1505/2024, Sri.B.S.Karthikeyan, learned
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
counsel appearing for proposed respondent No.5 in
W.A.No.1505/2024 and for proposed respondent No.28 in
W.A.No.1660/2024 and Sri.T.Prakash, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.1611/2024 and
appellant in W.A.No.1660/2024.
7. This Court after hearing the rival submissions of
the parties on the legal point as to whether the Revenue
Authorities have the right to take action in terms of the
KLR Act or it is the BBMP, which according to the
appellants now has the authority over the subject lands as
the lands were made subject to the jurisdiction of the
Municipal Corporation, directed the Government Advocate
to keep the concerned Tahsildar present before the Court
on 02.04.2026. The concerned Tahsildar of Yelahanaka by
name Mr.Shreyas.G.S was present before the Court and
sought time to file an affidavit. This Court vide order dated
02.04.2026 directed Tahsildar as well as the BBMP to file
their affidavits on the points raised in the order. The order
dated 02.04.2026 reads as under:
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
" ORAL ORDER
Mr.Shreyas.G.S - Tahsildar, Yelahanka is present in
the Court and seeks time to file an affidavit on the
following issues:
1. When the area in question came within the jurisdiction of
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short, 'BBMP')?
2. Whether the order of eviction from the agricultural land
passed in the year 2014 be implemented in the year 2023
after the area concerned has come within the jurisdiction
of BBMP by the revenue authorities?
3. Whether the Kathas have been formed of the land in
question by the BBMP?
We direct the BBMP also to file its affidavit on the
aforesaid issues, before the next date of posting of these
appeals.
We make it clear that we will not grant any further
time to the BBMP and the Tahsildar to file their respective
affidavits and if the authority fails to do the needful as
directed above, the authorities shall remain present
before this Court on the next date of posting of these
appeals.
Post these appeals on 09.04.2026.
Interim order granted earlier if any, shall be in
operation till the next date of posting."
8. Since there are questions regarding exercise of
jurisdiction raised before us by the parties, we directed the
BBMP also to file its affidavit on the aforesaid issues stated
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
in the order dated 02.04.2026 and ordered to list the
matters on 09.04.2026.
9. On 09.04.2026, the Joint Commissioner, BBMP
as well as Tahsildar, filed their respective affidavits.
10. The affidavit filed by the Joint Commissioner,
BBMP reads as under:
" AFFIDAVIT OF THE JOINT
COMMISSIONER, BBMP
I, Pallavi K R, D/oRamachandraiah K K, aged
about 40 years, presently working as Joint
Commissioner, Zone 2 Banglore North City
Corporation Bengaluru, do hereby solemnly
affirm and state as follows:
1. I am the Joint Commissioner of Zone 2
Banglore North City Corporation - Greater
Bangalore Authority and I am well acquainted
with the facts and circumstances of the case. I
am competent and authorized to swear to this
affidavit on behalf of BBMP.
2. I state that this affidavit is filed in
compliance with the directions of this Hon'ble
Court, particularly the order dated 02.04.2026,
calling upon BBMP to clarify specific issues
arising in the present proceedings.
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
Re: Issue No. 1 - When the area in
question came within the jurisdiction of
BBMP
3. I respectfully submit that mere inclusion
of the schedule lands/sites forming the subject
matter of the present proceedings came within
the jurisdiction of BBMP pursuant to the
Government Notification dated 16.01.2007,
whereby the said areas were included within the
limits of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike.
4. It is further submitted that mere inclusion
of the said areas within BBMP limits does not,
by itself, alter the nature, classification, or legal
status of the land. The schedule lands/sites
continued to remain agricultural nature revenue
records,notwithstanding their inclusion within
BBMP limits.
Re: Issue No. 2- Whether the eviction
order passed in 2014 can be implemented
after inclusion within BBMP jurisdiction
5. It is submitted that the schedule
lands/sites continued to retain their agricultural
character under the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act, as the owners of the said lands/sites did
not seek or obtain conversion of land use or
deemed conversion at any point of time.
6.It is further submitted that the
petitioners/owners applied for issuance of khata
only at a later point of time, and B khata entries
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
came to be issued in or about the years 2017-
2018, primarily for the limited purpose of
assessment and collection of property tax.
7. It is submitted that the issuance of B
khata does not regularize the land use nor does
it confer any legality upon the property. It is
merely an administrative entry and cannot be
construed as recognition of lawful conversion or
authorization for construction.
8. It is submitted that any construction put
up on the schedule lands/sites appears to have
been undertaken unauthorizedly during the
period 2017-2018, without obtaining conversion
orders or sanctioned building plans, and in
violation of applicable statutory provisions.
9. In the above circumstances, it is
submitted that until such time the lands
continued to be agricultural in character, the
jurisdiction over said lands vested with the
Tahsildar/Revenue Authorities, and therefore
the proceedings initiated under the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, including the eviction order
passed in the year 2014.
10. It is further submitted that even as on
date, in the absence of conversion or deemed
conversion, the schedule lands/sites continue to
be revenue properties as per law.
Re: Issue No. 3 - Whether khatas have
been formed by BBMP
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
11. It is submitted that khatas in respect of
the schedule lands/sites have been issued by
BBMP only under the 'B Register' category
during the years 2017-2018.
12. It is reiterated that B khata does not
confer any legal right, title, or authorization,
nor does it validate any construction or change
of land use. It is maintained solely for the
purpose of property tax assessment.
Further Submissions
13. It is submitted that the owners of the
schedule lands/sites have not made any
application for change of land use nor sought
deemed conversion, and therefore the lands
continue to retain their agricultural/revenue
character.
14. It is further submitted that as per the
statutory provisions governing BBMP (now
under the Greater Bengaluru Governance), no
building plan sanction can be granted in respect
of B khata properties, and consequently, any
construction put up on such properties is
unauthorized and illegal.
15. It is submitted that BBMP (now Greater
Bengaluru Authority) is empowered under
Section 243(3) and 244(1) of the Greater
Bangalore Governance Act to initiate action
against unauthorized constructions, including
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
issuance of notices and removal/demolition of
such illegal structures.
16. It is respectfully submitted that upon
inclusion of the schedule lands/sites within
BBMP limits, municipal control over building
activity vested with BBMP, however, the nature,
classification, and legality of land use continue
to be governed by the revenue laws unless duly
converted.
17. I state that GBA undertakes to initiate
and pursue appropriate action, in accordance
with statutory provisions, against any
unauthorized constructions existing on the
schedule lands/sites. If Katha is issued by
BBMP/GBA.
18. The statements made hereinabove are
true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information, and belief.
th
Verified at Bengaluru on this 7 day of April,
2026, that the contents of the above affidavit
are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief."
11. The affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, Yelahanka
reads as under:
" AFFIDAVIT
I, Shreyas G.S S/o Shivanna G.C aged about
38 years, working as Tahsildar, Yelahanka Taluk,
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
Bengaluru Urban District, do hereby solemnly
affirm and state on oath as follows:
1. I State that I am working as Tahsildar,
Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, I have
gone through records and other documents
available in the office of Tahsildar and I am aware
of the facts of the above case. Hence, I am
competent to swear to this Affidavit.
2. It is most respectfully submitted that on
02.04.2026 this Hon'ble Court has issued a
direction to the undersigned to file an affidavit on
the following issues:-
"i. When the area in question came within
the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike (for short, 'BBMP')?
ii. Whether the order of eviction from the
agricultural land passed in the year 2014 be
implemented in the year 2023 after the area
concerned has come within the jurisdiction of
BBMP by the revenue authorities?
iii. Whether the Kathas have been formed
of the land in question by the BBMP?".
3. It is most respectfully submitted that
with respect to issue No.1, the said area in
question that is Kenchenahally Village,
Yelahanka Taluk, Bangalore Urban District,
came under the jurisdiction of the Bruhath
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike since 2007 vide
notification bearing Number UDD 92 MNY 2006,
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
Bengaluru dated 16.01.2007 issued by Urban
Development Secretariat through a Gazette
Notification. The Copy of the said Notification is
produced herewith and marked as DOCUMENT
NO.1 .
4. It is most respectfully submitted that
this Hon'ble Court further directed to the
undersigned respond to whether the order of
eviction from the agricultural land which came
to be passed in 2014, could be implemented in
the year 2023. It is humbly submitted that the
above order passed on 31.12.2014 by the
Deputy Director of Land Records, Bengaluru
Urban District, where Phodi for the Survey
Numbers 34/1,2,3 has been cancelled and he
directs the Tahsildar to take action against the
Officials who are responsible for formation of
unauthorized layout U/S 192-A of Karnataka
Land Revenue Act 1964. The above said order
was not passed by the Deputy Commissioner for
eviction and does not utter a word on eviction.
The copy of the said order is produced herewith
and marked as DOCUMENT NO.2 (along with
translated copy ). Pursuant to the said order
no action has been taken by the office of the
Tahsildar. Since the land in question is an
agricultural land and the land is not converted,
the revenue authorities can initiate action under
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
section 96 of the Karnataka
Land Revenue act.
5. It is most humbly submitted that with
rd
respect to 3 issue, it can be seen from
Annexure-C of the Writ Petition, which is
produced at page number 72 in the appeal
memorandum, that the Bruhath Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike has issued Katha numbers to
the site holders. This is evident from the tax
paid receipt of the year 2024-2025. It is for
Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to
respond as to whom the Khata came to be
issued.
6. It is most humbly submitted that since
the said lands are now within the jurisdiction of
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, it is for them to
initiate or continue further proceedings in
accordance with law.
WHEREFORE, I humbly pray that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take the
contents of my affidavit on record, in the
interest of justice and equity."
12. On the affidavit of the Tahsildar,
Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior counsel has taken
objection relying on the earlier affidavit filed as compliance
affidavit in C.C.C No.113/2024 and contended that the
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
very same Tahsildar submitted that he has already
initiated action under proceedings to 192A of KLR Act in
respect of the illegal layout formed in agricultural lands in
Sy.Nos.33/1, 33/3, 33/5, 34/2 and 34/3 over different
extent of lands, as such the affidavit now filed by the said
Tahsildar contending that the dispute lands in
Kenchenahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru comes
under jurisdiction of BBMP since 2007 vide Notification
bearing No.UDD 92 MNY 2006 dated 16.01.2007 issued by
Urban Development Secretariat vide Gazette Notification
under document No.1, cannot be countenanced. He further
submits that even if it is taken for the sake of argument
but without admitting that, the land falls within the
jurisdiction of Municipality, but since the lands were not
converted from agricultural to non-agricultural use and the
same remained as agricultural lands, the revenue
authorities under the provisions of KLR Act have got all
jurisdiction to take action against the illegal encroachment
over the agricultural land and relied on the Judgment of
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of SUNIL
CHAJED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP, BY DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT AND
7
OTHERS and placed reliance on Paragraph Nos.10 and 11
of the order, they are as follows:
"10. From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it
is evident that the power has been conferred on the
Commissioner to direct survey of buildings or lands
within the city with a view to assessment of property
tax. The aforesaid provision has no bearing so far as
the issue involved in this case is concerned viz.,
whether Tahsildar has jurisdiction to decide the
matter pertaining to fixing the boundary of lands
forming survey number. The provisions of the Act as
well as Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act operate
in different fields and in any case, the scope and
ambit of the power under Section 140(2) of the Act
cannot be determined with reference to Section
112D of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act,
which even otherwise has no bearing on the issue.
11. It is settled in law that judgments have not
to be read as Euclid's theorems and their ration
descideni has to be determined with reference to the
factual matrix in which the case is decided. The
7
2022 SCC OnLine KAR 1632
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
reliance placed by the respondent No.3 on the
decision of division bench of this court in
J.M.NARAYANA AND OTHERS VS.
CORPORATION OF CITY OF BANGALORE supra is
concerned, it is pertinent to note that the division
bench in the aforesaid case was dealing with the
issue of non payment of court fee on the memo of
appeal. In the aforesaid context, the division bench
of this court while dealing with the issue of valuation
in paragraph 5 held that if certain lands are included
in the Corporation limits are registered or used for
cultivation purposes would not imply that the land
continues to pay land revenue under the Land
Revenue Act. It was further held that Land Revenue
Act would cease to be applicable no sooner the land
is brought within the limits of Corporation. The
aforesaid finding recorded by the division bench has
to be understood in the context in which it has been
made namely for the purpose of valuation of the land
in context of payment of court fee. It is noteworthy
that the aforesaid decision does not deal with the
powers of Tahsildar under Section 140(2) of the Act.
Therefore, in our considered opinion, the aforesaid
decision is not an authority for the proposition that
the provisions of the Act do not apply to the land in
question if it is included in Municipal Limits. The
aforesaid decision is therefore, of no assistance to
respondent No.3 in the facts of the case. Similarly,
the decision rendered by learnd Single Judges in
- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
case of KIRLOSKAR ELECTRICALS CO. PVT. LTD
and BASHEERKHAN supra are of no assistance to
the respondent No.3. The decision of the full bench
in SMT JAYMMA AND OTHERS supra is an
authority for the proposition that under Section
136(2) and (3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the
revenue officials cannot decide the question
involving the title and possession. The aforesaid
decision has also no bearing on the issue involved in
this appeal "
13. In contrast, counsel for the appellants submits
that in view of the Gazette Notification, since the lands
comes within the provision of BBMP since 2007 and the
orders which were passed by the Deputy Commissioner be
it in 2014 or 2022 or 2023 impugned therein are
subsequent to the said Gazette notification, as such even
for the sake of argument but without admitting, that
though the nature of the lands have not been changed,
the revenue authorities have lost their jurisdiction over the
lands in view of jurisdiction now conferred and subjected
to the BBMP and sought to dismiss the Writ Petition filed
by petitioner in No.17208/2024 and quash the impugned
- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
notice/order issued by Tahsildar as non-est placing
reliance on the Judgment of this Court in RFA
No.1386/2003 decided on 17.12.2003 in the case of
J.M.NARAYANA AND OTHERS VS. CORPORATION OF
THE CITY OF BANGALORE AND OTHERS , stressing on
Paragraph No.5 to contend that since the land was brought
under the limits of Corporation, the Land Revenue Act
would seize to have application.
14. Having considered the rival submissions, we
have perused the affidavit filed by Tahsildar as well as
Joint Commissioner, BBMP, we refrain ourselves from
acceding to the contention raised by Sri.D.R.Ravishankar,
to the effect that the Tahsildar earlier filed affidavit
contrary to the affidavit filed on 09.04.2026 in these
appeals. The affidavit filed by Tahsildar was under the
contempt jurisdiction wherein the contempt proceeding
was initiated for non-compliance of the order passed by
this Court. The affidavit filed contending that proceedings
have been initiated by issuing notice in compliance of the
- 47 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
order cannot be considered as assumption of jurisdiction
by the Revenue Authorities as the lands were made
subject to the jurisdiction of BBMP under Gazette
Notification way back in 2007. In that view of the matter,
though the land even if it is stated to be remained as
agricultural land, in view of the submission to the
jurisdiction of BBMP, the Revenue Authorities have no
jurisdiction to entertain any complaint or pass any orders
under the provisions of KLR Act.
15. However in terms of the averment expressed in
the affidavit filed by Joint Commissioner, BBMP stating
that they are empowered under Section 243(3) and
244(1) of Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, to initiate
action against unauthorized constructions, including
issuance of notices and removal/demolition of such illegal
structures and further the undertaking in the affidavit at
Paragraph No.17 wherein the said officer has clearly stated
that GBA undertakes to initiate and pursue appropriate
action, in accordance with statutory provisions, against
- 48 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
any unauthorized constructions existing on the schedule
lands/ sites, if Katha is issued by BBMP/GBA, we are of the
view that the Revenue Authorities have lost their
jurisdiction to take any action either implementing earlier
order from 2014-2022 or by means of issuing of notice
and passing orders under the provisions of the KLR Act. In
these circumstances, the Writ Appeals are disposed of
modifying the order passed by the Writ Court, with
observation that the BBMP may take action as provided in
the provisions stated supra. As the action is contemplated
by the BBMP, it answer the grievance of the petitioner in
W.P.No.17208/2024. In that view of the matter, the
actions contemplated under the provisions of Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, 1964 by the revenue authorities there
under stands obliterated.
16. Further, in view of the disputed questions of
fact raised by the parties and considering that the suit fled
by the petitioners in W.P.No.17208/2024 are pending
adjudication, the issues relating to title and possession are
- 49 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19625-DB
WA No. 1531 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1505 of 2024
WA No. 1532 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND 2 OTHERS
required to be determined by the competent Civil Court on
full-fledged trial. In that view of the matter, the liberty
reserved by the Writ Court in favor of the petitioners,
whose petitions were dismissed is saved.
17. With the above observations, the Writ Appeals
are disposed of .
18. In view of disposal of Writ Appeals, pending
I.As if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
TKN
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4