STATE OF KARNATAKA, vs SMT. YASHODHAMMA,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58094-DB
WA No. 1644 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1654 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010640352025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1644 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1654 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
IN WA No. 1644/2025
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
Digitally
signed by
MALA K N
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BEERASANDRA VILLAGE,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58094-DB
WA No. 1644 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1654 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010640352025
DODDABALLAPURA-562103
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
DEVANAHALLI-562110.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.H.RAGHAVENDRA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. ANITHA,
W/O. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/a.SOMATHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN-562 129
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SRI.PUNITH C .,ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2025 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION
No.11504/2025 (KLR-RES) BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL
AND ETC.
IN WA NO. 1654/2025
BETWEEN:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58094-DB
WA No. 1644 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1654 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010640352025
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BEERASANDRA VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU-562 110.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
DODDABALLAPURA-562103
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
DEVANAHALLI-562110.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.H.RAGHAVENDRA, ADDITIONAL
GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. YASHODHAMMA,
W/O. S.K. SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SOMATHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
PIN-562 129
...RESPONDENT
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58094-DB
WA No. 1644 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1654 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010640352025
(BY SRI . PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR BHASKAR GOWDA N M.,ADVOCATE )
WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 28.04.2025, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No-11705/2025 (KLR-RES) BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS, 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 H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated
17.01.2024 passed in Revision Petition No.58 of 2014-15,
prima facie , found no valid grant in favour of the private
respondents and, therefore, directed the Tahsildar to
decide the claim of the private respondents for
continuation of their names against the revenue entries in
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58094-DB
WA No. 1644 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1654 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010640352025
respect of the land in Survey No.149/*/P1, 2 acres and 1
acre in the same survey number granted to respondent
Smt. Yashodamma and Smt. Anitha. On remand, the
Tahsildar, Devanahalli, passed an order dated 30.09.2024
holding that the grant made in favour Smt. Yashodamma
and Smt. Anitha was valid and legal and therefore, the
khatha to continue in their name. The Writ Petition came
to filed for implementing the order passed by the Tahsildar
for continuation of the names of Smt. Yashodamma and
Smt. Anitha in respect of the lands in question. Vide order
dated 28.04.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.11705 of
2025, the Writ Court directed the Tahsildar to implement
the order dated 30.09.2024 within a period of three
months. Whereas, vide order dated 10.06.2025 passed in
Writ Petition No.11504 of 2025, the Writ Court directed to
continue the khatha in respect of 1 acres of land in Survey
No.149/*/P1 in favour of the petitioner Smt. Anitha and
directed to consider the representation of the petitioner
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58094-DB
WA No. 1644 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1654 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010640352025
Smt. Anitha in the revenue records in respect of the land
in question within an outer limit of 3 months.
2. Sri. S.H. Raghavendra, learned AGA, has
vehemently submitted that the original record suggests
that there was no grant and fictitious entries were made to
suggest that the land in question i.e. 2 and 1 acres were
granted in favour of Smt. Yashodamma and Smt. Anitha
respectively. The orders passed in these two writ petitions
are based on the presumption that the land was validly or
legally granted in favour of the petitioner Smt.
Yashodamma and Smt. Anitha, whereas the record would
suggest otherwise and that same finding was recorded by
the Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 17.01.2024.
He further submits that the State would challenge the
order passed by the Tahsildar on remand. They could not
do the same because of the pending writ petitions.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58094-DB
WA No. 1644 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1654 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010640352025
3. On the other hand, Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadgi,
learned Senior Counsel submitted that the names of the
petitioners were removed from the revenue record without
them being heard or giving any notice, and, therefore the
petitioners made the representations on which the orders
came to be passed. In view of the above, as the Tahsildar
has found the grant valid and legal and, therefore, there is
no ground to remove their names from the revenue
records. However, if the State wants to challenge the
order passed by the Tahsildar, this is for them to do the
needful. But, so long as the order remains there, the
names of the petitioners should continue in the revenue
record.
4. We have considered the submissions.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners' names
were removed from the revenue record without them
being afforded any opportunity of hearing. Further on
remand, the Tahsildar has again reiterated that the grants
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58094-DB
WA No. 1644 of 2025
C/W WA No. 1654 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010640352025
are valid and legal. So long as the order of the Tahsildar
is not set aside, the petitioners are entitled for their names
in the revenue record.
6. We, therefore, dispose of these appeals with
liberty to the State to challenge the order passed by the
Tahsildar within six weeks, if they are so advised.
However, the petitioners should not alienate or create any
third party right in respect of the land in question till the
issue regarding grant is finally settled. Revenue entries
shall be subject to the order passed in the proceedings by
the revenue authorities.
In the result, the appeals are disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
JUDGE
CS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20