THE CORRESPONDENT vs THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61866
WP No. 17588 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010386172026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 17588 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE CORRESPONDENT,
ST LOURDES BOYS HIGH SCHOOL,
NO.14/1, CAMBRIDGE ROAD,
JOGUPALYA, USLORR,
BANGALORE - 560 008.
REPRESENTED BY
FR. MARIA LOUIS,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O CHRISTU RAJA.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JOSEPH ANILKUMAR A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR
OF LAND RECORDS,
BANGALORE DIVISION,
1ST CROSS, KR CIRCLE,
AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER,
CITY SURVEY NO.2,
KR CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
Digitally signed by
CHAYA S A
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61866
WP No. 17588 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010386172026
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,
CITY SURVEY NO.2,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. SMT. MAHESHWARI,
W/O LATE RANGANATHAN,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/O NO.18, KUMAR KOIL STREET,
PARANGIPETTAL, CUDDALORE,
TAMILNADU - 608 502.
5. SRI. AMUL RAJ,
S/O M. CALLIAPERUMAL,
AGED ABOUT YEARS,
R/O NO.183, SUBBAIAH NAGAR,
THATTANCHAVADY,
PONDICHERRY - 605 009.
6. SMT. AMASAVALLI,
D/O LATE RANGANATHAN,
W/O SRI. VALTHANATHAN,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT NO.472,
VINAYAGAR KOIL STREET,
PUDHUKUPPAM,
VIRUPATCHI,
CUDDALORE - 607 302,
TAMILNADU.
7. SMT. THILAGAM,
D/O LATE RAGANATHAN,
W/O CALLIPERUMAL,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
R/AT NO.183, SUBBAIAH NAGAR,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61866
WP No. 17588 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010386172026
THATTANCHAVADY,
PONDICHERRY - 605 009.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI.JAYAVITTAL RAO KOLAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R5 AND R7;
R6 IS DECEASED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE / QUASH ANNEXURE A THE ORDER
DATED 08/05/2026 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN
REVISION PETITION 1/2024 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the
order dated 08.05.2026 in Revision Petition No.1/2024 on
the file of respondent No.1 (Annexure-A) inter alia sought
for restoration of the property card standing in the name
of the petitioner, by implementing the impugned order.
2. Sri Joseph Anil Kumar.A., learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
is the absolute owner in possession of the property
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61866
WP No. 17588 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010386172026
bearing Survey No.17 (old No.14/11) CTS No.1208,
Cambridge Road at Civil Station Halsoor, Bangalore.
Learned counsel further contended that, the private
respondents herein have challenged the survey and the
hadbasthu in respect of the subject land after five decades
and therefore, contended that respondent No.1 has no
authority to pass the impugned order in contravention of
Section 56(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964
and in this regard, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner refers to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of M.R.R. Setty (Dead) by Lrs. v.
Government of Karnataka and Others reported in
2026 SCC Online SC 1743 and submitted that
respondent No.1 has committed an error in allowing the
Revision Petition in part filed by the private respondents
herein and accordingly, sought for interference of this
Court.
3. Sri Jayavittal Rao Kolar, learned Senior Counsel
on behalf of Sri Pruthvi Wodeyar, learned counsel
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61866
WP No. 17588 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010386172026
appearing for respondent Nos.4, 5 and 7 submitted that
the petitioner has no title in respect of the land in question
and further contended that the petitioner herein has filed
O.S.No.26699/2022 before the Trial Court seeking relief of
injunction and in the said suit the petitioner herein has
filed I.A.Nos.1 and 2 seeking order of temporary injunction
against the defendants therein and the said applications
were dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated
15.09.2026 and further contended by referring to the
finding recorded by the Trial Court in the said order in
connection with paragraph Nos.18 to 25 and contended
that the Trial Court has already made an observation,
prima facie that there is a cloud in respect of the
ownership of petitioner herein and therefore, submitted
that as the petitioners themself do not have the title over
the property in question and therefore, the writ petition
deserves to be dismissed.
4. It is also submitted by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4, 5 and 7 that
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61866
WP No. 17588 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010386172026
respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein have the right over the
property and are in possession of the land in question and
further contended by referring to the operative portion in
the impugned order at Annexure-A and submitted that,
the said Revision Petition filed by the private respondents
herein has been allowed in part. However, respondent
No.1 has directed the respondent-authorities to continue
the name of the petitioner in the revenue records and
therefore, the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the
petitioner is not aggrieved by the impugned order.
5. Sri Shamanth NaiK, learned Additional
Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 sought to
justify the impugned order and sought for dismissal of the
writ petition.
6. In the light of the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful
consideration of the impugned order at Annexure-A,
wherein, respondent No.1 has not stated in the entire
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61866
WP No. 17588 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010386172026
order with regard to which order has been challenged by
the private respondents herein in the impugned order. It is
also forthcoming from the operative portion of the
impugned order at Annexure-A, it is not clear as to which
order was under challenge has been passed by respondent
No.1, since the Revision Petition came to be allowed in
part.
7. In that view of the matter, taking into
consideration the title in respect of the petitioner as well
as the private respondents is required to be decided in the
competent Civil Court and as it is rightly pointed out by
the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent
Nos.4, 5 and 7, in respect of the order dated 15.09.2026
in O.S.No.26699 of 2022 by the Competent Civil Court, I
am of the view that, the matter requires to be remanded
to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration.
8. Though the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner has preferred
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61866
WP No. 17588 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010386172026
appeal against the order dated 15.09.2026 passed in
O.S.No.26699/2022, a perusal of the findings recorded by
the Trial Court, wherein, the Trial Court has made an
observation while considering the application under Order
XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC as to the cloud
in respect of the title of the plaintiff therein (petitioner
herein). Therefore, I am of the view that the matter
requires to be remitted to respondent No.1 for fresh
consideration, by taking into consideration the rights of
the parties and the documents that may be produced by
them while adjudicating the Revision Petition No.1/2024-
25 and further, the revenue records that can be placed by
the competent authorities therein and thereafter,
respondent No.1 shall take decision in the matter, in
accordance with law.
9. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed-in-part .
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61866
WP No. 17588 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010386172026
(ii) The Order dated 08.05.2026 (Annexure-A)
passed by respondent No.1 is accordingly, set aside and
the matter is remitted to respondent No.1 to reconsider
the issue afresh in the light of the observation made above
and thereafter, take decision in the matter in accordance
with law.
(iii) In order to expedite the hearing, I am of the
view that as the parties are represented through the
learned counsels, parties are directed to appear before
respondent No.1 on 15.12.2026 at 02:30 p.m. and on
their appearance, the respondent No.1 shall expedite the
hearing.
(iv) All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
PSJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13