SRI SHUBHAM SHARMA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60448
WP No. 32147 of 2025
C/W WP No. 32146 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010695132025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 32147 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 32146 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
IN WP No. 32147/2025
BETWEEN:
M. ANJINAPPA
S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.145,
2ND CROSS, JANANI ENCLAVE,
HURULICHIKKANAHALLI,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
CHIKKABANAVARA POST,
YELAHANKA TALUK,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 090.
…PETITIONER
Digitally
signed by
VIDYA G R
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. R.S. RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SARASWATHI M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60448
WP No. 32147 of 2025
C/W WP No. 32146 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010695132025
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
DISTRICT OFFICE COMPLEX,
BEERASANDRA VILLAGE,
DEVANGAHALLI TALUK - 562110.
3. TAHASILDAR
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
YELAHANKA, YELAHANKA TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 064.
4. SRI. B. N. JAGANNATHA
S/O.M. NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 64/1, 1ST MAIN,
3RD CROSS, SEETHARAMAIAH ROAD,
GAVIPURAM EXTENSION,
BENGALURU-560 019.
5. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O. LATE MUNIMALAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT HURULICHIKKANAHALLI,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
CHIKKABANAVARA POST,
YELAHANKA TALUK,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 090.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ASHVINI PATIL, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SMT. BHARATHI M., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. B. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60448
WP No. 32147 of 2025
C/W WP No. 32146 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010695132025
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.02.2024 BEARING
NO. ALN(G)(H)/CR/26/2020-21 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3
VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.,
IN WP NO. 32146/2025
BETWEEN:
SRI SHUBHAM SHARMA
S/O NATTILAL SHARMA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT SITE NO.165,
HURULICHIKKANAHALLI,
HESARAGATTA HOBLI,
CHIKKABANAVARA POST,
YELAHANKA TALUK,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560090.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.S. RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SARASWATHI M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
DISTRICT OFFICE COMPLEX,
BEERASANDRA VILLAGE,
DEVANGANAHALLI TALUK-562110.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60448
WP No. 32147 of 2025
C/W WP No. 32146 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010695132025
3. TAHASILDAR,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
YELAHANKA, YELAHANKA TALUK,
BENGALURU-560064.
4. SRI. B. N. JAGANNATHA
S/O M. NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.64/1, IST MAIN,
3RD CROSS, SEETHARAMAIAH ROAD,
GAVIPURAM EXTENSION,
BENGALURU-560019.
5.
SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIMALAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT HURULICHIKKANAHALLI,
HESARAGATTA HOBLI,
CHIKKABANAVARA POST,
YELANKA TALUK,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560090.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ASHVINI PATIL, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SMT. BHARATHI M., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. B. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ART5ICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02-02-2024
BEARING NO.ALN(G)(H)/CR/26/2020-21 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.,

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60448
WP No. 32147 of 2025
C/W WP No. 32146 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010695132025
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
ORAL ORDER
The present petitions have been filed seeking to set
aside the order dated 02.02.2024 passed by respondent
No.3 - Tahsildar. Perusal of the said order would reveal
that the Tahsildar has passed an order to the effect that
the encroachment is required to be removed in terms of
the order dated 04.04.2022 and costs to be recovered.
2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. R.S.Ravi appearing
for the petitioners contends that action initiated by the
Tahsildar is purportedly under Section 96 of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') and that in
terms of Section 96(4) of the Act, the Deputy
Commissioner has the power to compound diversion of
agricultural land used for any other purpose, without the
permission of the Deputy Commissioner. It is submitted
that the power of the Deputy Commissioner under Section

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60448
WP No. 32147 of 2025
C/W WP No. 32146 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010695132025
96(4), would override the powers conferred under Section
96(1) to (3) and that the Deputy Commissioner having
been approached by the landlord ought to have considered
exercise of power under Section 96(4) and that the order
of the Tahsildar be set aside awaiting the outcome of the
application filed by the landlord under Section 96(4) of the
Act.
3. Learned counsel Smt. Bharathi M., appearing
for respondent No.4 would point out that the Coordinate
Bench in W.P.No.36401/2025 called with
W.P.No.33654/2025 with respect to the very same order
challenged herein viz order dated 02.02.2024 of the
Tahsildar, has already disposed of the writ petition
refusing to interfere with the order of the Tahsildar and
this Court is obliged to take a similar view.
4. Heard both sides.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60448
WP No. 32147 of 2025
C/W WP No. 32146 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010695132025
5. The order passed by the Coordinate Bench in
W.P.No.36401/2025 called with W.P.No.33654/2025 reads
as follows:
"1. In these Writ Petitions, petitioners are
assailing the order dated 02.02.2024 passed by
respondent No.3 - Tahsildar, Yelahanka Taluk,
Bengaluru and the impugned notice dated
30.10.2025 passed by respondent No.3 as to
remove the encroachment/construction made in
the agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 110/2
measuring 2 acres 7 guntas of land at
Huralichikkanahalli Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli,
Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru District.
2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and on careful consideration of the
proceedings dated 02.02.2024 and the notice
dated 30.10.2025 issued by the Tahsildar,
Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru would indicate that
construction has been made in an agricultural
land without seeking grant of permission for
conversion of the land in question, from the
competent authority. In that view of the matter,
such construction of building runs contrary to
Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
1964. In that view of the matter, I am of the view

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60448
WP No. 32147 of 2025
C/W WP No. 32146 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010695132025
that, there is no infirmity in the notice dated
30.10.2025 issued by the Tahsildar pursuant to
the order dated 02.02.2024, passed by the
Tahsildar.
3. It is also to be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of RAJENDRA KUMAR
BARJATYA AND ANOTHER Vs. U.P. AVAS EVAM
VIKAS PARISHAD AND OTHERS, reported in 2024
SCC OnLine SC 3767 , held that if any layout has
been formed in agricultural land without following
the procedure as to conversion of the land for non
agricultural purpose, such action on the part of
the owners cannot be accepted by the respondent
- authorities. Following the aforesaid Judgment, I
am of the view that, no interference is called for
in these Writ Petitions.
4. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed."
6. Though learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioners has raised certain contentions by placing
reliance on power conferred on the Deputy Commissioner
under Section 96(4) of the Act, however it would not be
appropriate to pass an order contrary to the order of the
Coordinate Bench insofar as the order dated 02.02.2024

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60448
WP No. 32147 of 2025
C/W WP No. 32146 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010695132025
which was the subject matter of challenge in
W.P.No.36401/2025, is also challenged in the present
proceedings.
7. Accordingly, the petitions are rejected , taking
note of the observations of the Coordinate Bench in
W.P.No.36401/2025. Needless to state, as regards the
application filed under Section 96(4) of the Act before the
Deputy Commissioner, this Court leaves it open for
consideration as is permissible in law.
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
MCR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19