SRI.S.R. VENUGOPAL vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61932
WP No. 16990 of 2022
C/W WP No. 14626 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010386772022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 05 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.16990 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.14626 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
IN WP No. 16990/2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. PAPANNA
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
R/AT INDRASANAHALLI VILLAGE
KUNDANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562110.
KRISHANPPA
SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LRS
2. CHIKKEGOWDA
S/O LATE KRISHANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT INDRASANAHALLI VILLAGE
KUNDANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562110.
Digitally signed by
CHAYA S A
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61932
WP No. 16990 of 2022
C/W WP No. 14626 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010386772022
HANUMANTHAPPA
SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LRS.
3. SURESH
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT INDRASANAHALLI VILLAGE
KUNDANA HOBALI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562110.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PHANIRAJ KASHYAP, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE RURAL – 562110.
2. TAHSILDAR
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL – 562110.
3. SRI. C. ASHWATHNARAYANA
S/O CHIKKAPPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
M/S CITY BUILD REALTORS PVT LTD
R/AT INDRASANAHALLI VILLAGE
KUNDANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562110.
4. SRI. S.R. VENUGOPAL
S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61932
WP No. 16990 of 2022
C/W WP No. 14626 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010386772022
R/AT INDRASANAHALLI VILLAGE
KUNDANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562110.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. MANJUNATH G. KANDEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. MANJUNATH M. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3 V/O DATED
05.11.2026)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 22.02.2022 PASSED IN RP NO.145/2015
BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNX-A; AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 14626/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.S.R. VENUGOPAL
SON OF LATE RAMACHADNRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SADAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562110.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH G KANDEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M S BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61932
WP No. 16990 of 2022
C/W WP No. 14626 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010386772022
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVAN,
BEERASANDRA VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562110.
3.
THE TAHASILDAR
DEVANAHALLI,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561203.
4. SRI. C. ASHWATH NARAYANA,
SON OF SRI. CHIKKAPPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SLN PROPERTIES,
SULIBELE ROAD, KUNDANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
KRISHNAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
5. CHIKKEGOWDA
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT INDRASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562110.
6. SRI. PAPANNA
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61932
WP No. 16990 of 2022
C/W WP No. 14626 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010386772022
SON OF MUNISHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
RESIDING AT INDRASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.
HANUMANTHAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
7.
SRI. SURESH
S/O LATE HANUMANTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT INDRASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562164.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. MANJUNATH M. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. PHANIRAJ KASHYAP, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ND
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE 2
RESPONDENT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN R.P.NO.
145/2015 DATED 22/02/2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-A, AND
ALSO THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 06/09/2021 IN R.P.NO. 96/2016 AS PER
ANNEXURE-B.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61932
WP No. 16990 of 2022
C/W WP No. 14626 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010386772022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are
assailing the order dated 22.02.2026 (Annexure-A) in
R.P.No.145 of 2015, and order dated 06.09.2021
(Annexure-B) in R.P.No.96 of 2016 passed by
respondent-Deputy Commissioner, whereby the grant
of land made in favour of the petitioners has been
cancelled.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
3. Sri Phanirajn Kashyap, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner in W.P.No.16990 of 2022, and Sri
Manjunath G Kandekar, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner in W.P.No.14626 of 2024, contended
that the lands in question were purchased by the
petitioners through registered Sale Deeds from their
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61932
WP No. 16990 of 2022
C/W WP No. 14626 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010386772022
respective vendors. In this regard, the learned
counsel referred to the Khetwar Register maintained
by the respondent-authorities (Annexure-C in
W.P.No.16990 of 2022) and further submitted that
mutation entries have also been effected in respect of
the subject lands in favour of the petitioners.
4. It is further contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners that subsequent sale
deeds have been executed in respect of the subject
lands. The learned counsel also brought to the notice
of this Court the orders dated 05.10.2018 passed in
LGC(S) No.727 of 2017 (Annexure-G in W.P.No.16990
of 2022) and LGC(S) No.728 of 2017 (Annexure-N in
W.P.No.14626 of 2024), and contended that the
Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Courts,
Bengaluru, had dropped the proceedings against the
petitioners herein, after verifying the records. In this
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61932
WP No. 16990 of 2022
C/W WP No. 14626 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010386772022
regard, they specifically referred to paragraph 12 of
the said orders.
5. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the
petitioners contended that the impugned orders
passed by respondent-Deputy Commissioner,
produced as Annexures-A and B, respectively, are
without any basis and are unsustainable in law.
Accordingly, sought for interference of this court.
6. Per contra, Sri. Shamanth Naik, learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for the
respondent-State sought to justify the impugned
orders passed by the respondent-Deputy
Commissioner and contended that the land in question
has been classified as tank-bed lands. It is further
contended that the observations made by the
Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court
have no bearing on the initiation of suo motu
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61932
WP No. 16990 of 2022
C/W WP No. 14626 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010386772022
proceedings by respondent-Deputy Commissioner.
Accordingly, the learned Additional Government
Advocate sought dismissal of the writ petitions.
7. In the light of the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court
has carefully examined the records, particularly the
Khetwar Register, which indicates that the land in
question was granted in favour of the vendors of the
petitioners under the Hangami Kandaya auction during
the year 1921-22, pursuant to the order of the Sub-
Divisional Huzur bearing No.576/1921-22 (in
W.P.No.16990 of 2022 and petitioner in W.P.No.14626
of 2024, was granted land through his vendors.
8. A perusal of the records would further indicate
that respondent-Assistant Commissioner, by Official
Memorandum dated 02.07.2005, had permitted
conversion of the adjacent lands under Section 95 of
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61932
WP No. 16990 of 2022
C/W WP No. 14626 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010386772022
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. If that being
so, the very same authority could not have
subsequently initiated suo motu proceedings under
Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
1964, without considering the effect of its earlier order
permitting conversion of the lands.
9. It is needless to observe that the subject lands
were also the subject matter of proceedings before the
Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court,
Bengaluru, in LGC(S) Nos.727 of and 728 of 2017.
The competent Court, upon consideration of the
records, arrived at a conclusion that respondent-
Deputy Commissioner had not produced any material
to substantiate its contention that the lands in
question were classified as Indrasanahalli tank-bed
lands.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61932
WP No. 16990 of 2022
C/W WP No. 14626 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010386772022
10. In that view of the matter, when the competent
Court has already recorded a finding that no material
was placed by respondent-authorities to establish that
the subject lands were tank-bed lands, the
respondent-authorities were required to consider the
said finding before initiating further proceedings in
respect of the very same lands.
11. That apart, it is a well-settled principle of law
that suo-motu proceedings by quasi-judicial
authorities are required to be initiated within a
reasonable period. In this regard, reliance is placed on
the declarations of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Joint Collector Ranga Reddy
District and Another vs. D. Narsing Rao and
others reported in (2015) 3 SCC 695 , in the case of
Shyamo Devi and others vs. State of U.P.,
through Secretary and others reported in AIR
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61932
WP No. 16990 of 2022
C/W WP No. 14626 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010386772022
2024 SC 2862 and in the case of Shivama (dead)
by Lrs., vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Others
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 , wherein it
has been held that proceedings seeking to annul or
nullify a grant cannot be initiated after an
unreasonable lapse of time, and that the foundational
facts warranting such initiation must be established.
12. A perusal of the reasons assigned in the
impugned orders would indicate that there has been
considerable delay and laxity on the part of the
respondent-authorities in initiating suo motu
proceedings, particularly when the original grants
relate to a period nearly eight decades prior to the
initiation of such proceedings.
13. Further, it is forthcoming from the records that
the very same authority, which has passed the
impugned orders, had also passed order of conversion
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61932
WP No. 16990 of 2022
C/W WP No. 14626 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010386772022
in respect of similarly situated lands adjacent to the
subject lands. This circumstance is also required to be
taken into consideration while examining the legality
of the impugned action.
14. It is also submitted by Sri Manjunath Hegde,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4- C.
Ashwath Narayan, that respondent No.4 is a
subsequent purchaser of the land in question and that
the land claimed by respondent No.4 was also the
subject matter of proceedings in LGC(S) No.729 of
2017, wherein the Karnataka Land Grabbing
Prohibition Special Court, Bengaluru, by order dated
05.10.2018, had dropped the proceedings against
respondent No.4. The said submission has not been
disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners.
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61932
WP No. 16990 of 2022
C/W WP No. 14626 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010386772022
15. In the aforesaid circumstances, and having
regard to the material available on record, this Court
finds considerable force in the submissions made by
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The
impugned action of respondent-Deputy Commissioner,
particularly in the absence of any material establishing
the classification of the subject lands as tank-bed
lands and having regard to the inordinate delay in
initiating suo motu proceedings, cannot be sustained
in law.
16. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petitions are allowed .
ii. The impugned order dated 22.02.2026
(Annexure-A) in R.P.No.145 of 2015, and
order dated 06.09.2021 (Annexure-B) in
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61932
WP No. 16990 of 2022
C/W WP No. 14626 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010386772022
R.P.No.96 of 2016 passed by respondent-
Deputy Commissioner, are hereby set aside.
iii. The jurisdictional Tahsildar is directed to
enter the names of the petitioners and the
subsequent purchasers, if any, in respect of
the subject lands, in the revenue records,
within an outer limit of two months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52