NAGEGOWDA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59178
WP No. 20308 of 2021
C/W WP No. 13954 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010419762021





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

WRIT PETITION NO.20308 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

C/W

WRIT PETITION NO.13954 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)



IN WP No. 20308/2021

BETWEEN:

1. VYRAMUDIGOWDA
S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

2. A C CHALUVEGOWDA
S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.

3. CHIKKAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.

4. HALAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.

5. BETTAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.








Digitally signed
by CHAYA S A
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59178
WP No. 20308 of 2021
C/W WP No. 13954 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010419762021



6. BORAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

7. CHALUVEGOWDA
S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

ALL ARE RESIDING AT
ANANDRU VILLAGE
ILAVALA HOBLI
MYSURU TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT – 570001.

…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G.L.VISHWANATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SREERAM T. NAYAK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT
MYSURU -570001.

3.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT
MYSURU -570001.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59178
WP No. 20308 of 2021
C/W WP No. 13954 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010419762021



4. THE TAHSILDAR
MYSURU DISTRICT
MYSURU -570001.

5. THE ASSISTANT TAHASILDHAR
NADA KACHERI
YELAWALA HOBLI
MYSURU TALUK-570001.

6. NAGEGOWDA
S/O THIRUMALEGOWDA
AGED : MAJOR
ANANDUR VILLAGE
YELAWALA HOBLI
MYSURU TALUK-570001.

7.
GOPALA
S/O THIRUMALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
ANANDUR VILLAGE
YELAWALA HOBLI
MYSURU TALUK-570001.

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI. R.S. RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R6 & R7)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2021 PASSED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.2-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU
DISTRICT AT MYSURU IN R.P.NO.117 AND 118/2018 i.e IN SO
FAR AS SETTING ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59178
WP No. 20308 of 2021
C/W WP No. 13954 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010419762021



IN R.A.220/2015 AND DATED 01.08.2018 AND ALSO UP
HOLDING ORDER DATED 07.05.1993 PASSED IN RRT 14/92-93
AND M.R.NO.5/93-94 AND RESTORING THE LAND AS
GOVERNMENT GOMAL LAND VIDE ANENXURE-E TO THE W.P.
AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER IN RA NO.220/2015 DTD.01.08.2018
(ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION).
IN WP NO. 13954/2025
BETWEEN:
1.
NAGEGOWDA
S/O LATE THIRUMALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT ANANDOORU GRAMA,
ILLAWALA HOBLI
MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 570 001.

2. GOPALA
S/O LATE THIRUMALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT ANANDOORU GRAMA,
ILLAWALA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 570 001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. R.S. RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59178
WP No. 20308 of 2021
C/W WP No. 13954 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010419762021



M.S. BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU,
MYSURU-570001.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MYSURU,
MYSURU-570001.

4. THE TAHSILDAR,
MYSURU,
MYSURU-570001.

5. VYRAMUDIGOWDA
S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

6. A.C.CHALUVEGOWDA
S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.

7.
CHIKKAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.

8. HALAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS.

9.
BETTAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59178
WP No. 20308 of 2021
C/W WP No. 13954 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010419762021




10. BORAMMA
S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

11. CHALUVEGOWDA
S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

RESPONDENTS NO. 5 TO 11 ARE
RESIDING AT ANANDOORU GRAMA,
ILLAWALA HOBLI
MYSURU TALUK - 570 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. G.L. VISHWANATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SREERAM T. NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R11)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24/02/2021 MADE IN RP 117
AND 118 OF 2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE
ANNEXURE-J; AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59178
WP No. 20308 of 2021
C/W WP No. 13954 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010419762021



ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Sri. G.L. Vishwanath, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P. No. 20308 of
2021 and respondent Nos.5 to 11 in W.P.No.13954 of 2025;
Sri. Shamanth Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the respondent-State, and Sri. R.S. Ravi, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel Sri.
Akarsh Kumar Gowda, for respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in
W.P.No.20308 of 2021 and for petitioners in W.P.No.13954 of
2025.

2. In W.P. No. 20308 of 2021, the petitioners have
challenged the order dated 24.02.2021 (Annexure-E) passed by
respondent No. 2-Deputy Commissioner in R.P. Nos. 117 and
118 of 2018 and have sought for confirmation of the order
dated 01.08.2018 (Annexure-D) passed by respondent No.3-
Assistant Commissioner.

3. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioners that, as evidenced by the registered sale
deeds dated 16.09.1954 (Annexures-A and A1), the father of
the petitioner, Chikkegowda, had purchased the land in

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59178
WP No. 20308 of 2021
C/W WP No. 13954 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010419762021



question under two separate registered sale deeds. Therefore,
the land in question is private property belonging to the
petitioners and cannot be treated as Gomal land by the
respondent-authorities and accordingly, sought for interference
of this court.

4. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel has placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of
Shivalingamma and others vs. Ashraya Yojana
Committee Huliyur Durga Constituency reported in ILR
2002 KAR 495 , and contended that the petitioners in W.P. No.
13954 of 2025 cannot claim any legal right over the land in
question merely on the basis of their alleged unauthorised
occupation, particularly when the land is private property
belonging to the petitioners in W.P. No. 20308 of 2021.
Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel sought interference
with the impugned order and dismissal of W.P. No. 13954 of
2025.

5. In W.P. No. 13954 of 2025, the petitioners claim rights
over the land in question on the basis of their alleged
unauthorised occupation and have challenged the order dated

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59178
WP No. 20308 of 2021
C/W WP No. 13954 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010419762021



24.02.2021 passed in R.P. Nos. 117 and 118 of 2018
(Annexure-J) by respondent No. 2. They have, inter alia,
sought a direction to respondent No. 4 to enter their names in
the revenue records in respect of the land in question.

6. In this regard, Sri. R.S Ravi, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.13954 of 2025, has
referred to the order dated 07.05.1993 (Annexure-G) passed
by the Assistant Commissioner, Mysuru Sub-Division, wherein
certain villagers of Anandur had preferred an appeal
challenging the khata entries made in favour of the father of
the petitioner and one N.S. Subba Rao. It is further contended
that, by order dated 07.05.1993, the Assistant Commissioner
had set aside the grant made in favour of the vendor of
Chikkegowda. Therefore, according to the learned Senior
Counsel, the petitioners in W.P. No. 20308 of 2021 cannot
claim any right over the land in question, as the grant made in
favour of the erstwhile grantees had already been cancelled.

7. It is further contended that the land in question belongs
to the Government and that the order dated 01.08.2018 passed
by the Assistant Commissioner in favour of the petitioners in

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59178
WP No. 20308 of 2021
C/W WP No. 13954 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010419762021



W.P. No. 20308 of 2021 is non-est in law, as the Assistant
functus officio
Commissioner had become . Therefore, the
learned Senior Counsel submits that the order dated
24.02.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in R.P. Nos.
117 and 118 of 2018 does not call for interference, particularly
when the petitioners in W.P. No. 13954 of 2025 claim to have
been cultivating the land in question pursuant to the grant
made in their favour. Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel
sought dismissal of W.P. No.20308 of 2021 and allowing the
W.P. No. 13954 of 2025.

8. Per contra, Sri. Shamanth Naik, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State
sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner and reiterated the averments made in the
statement of objections.

9. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, it is evident that the
petitioners in W.P. No. 13954 of 2025 claim rights over the
property in question on the basis of their alleged unauthorised
occupation and the application stated to have been filed in

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59178
WP No. 20308 of 2021
C/W WP No. 13954 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010419762021



Form No. 53. On the other hand, the petitioners in W.P. No.
20308 of 2021 claim ownership over the very same property on
the basis of the registered sale deeds dated 16.09.1954, stated
to have been executed in favour of father of the petitioners.

10. On careful consideration of the order dated 07.05.1993
(Annexure-G in W.P.No.13954 of 2025) passed by the Assistant
Commissioner, Mysuru Sub-Division, which is relied upon by
the petitioners in W.P. No. 13954 of 2025, it is noticed that the
said proceedings were initiated at the instance of certain
villagers of Anandur, who challenged the khata entries made in
favour of N.S. Subba Rao and Chikkegowda.

11. It is relevant to note that the registered sale deeds dated
16.09.1954, under which the father of the petitioners in W.P.
No. 20308 of 2021 claims to have acquired the property,
constitute the basis of their claim. The proceedings initiated by
the villagers, without impleading the concerned grantees or
persons claiming through them, cannot, by themselves, be
treated as sufficient to deprive the rights claimed by the
petitioners under the registered instruments.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59178
WP No. 20308 of 2021
C/W WP No. 13954 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010419762021




12. Therefore, in the absence of the concerned grantees
being parties to the proceedings, the order dated 07.05.1993
(Annexure-G in W.P.No.13954 of 2025) cannot be relied upon
to conclude that the rights claimed by the petitioners in W.P.
No. 20308 of 2021 stood extinguished. Consequently, the said
order cannot be treated as determinative of the title claimed by
the petitioners under the registered sale deeds.

13. Insofar as the order dated 01.08.2018 (Annexure-D)
passed by the competent authority is concerned, the petitioners
in W.P. No. 20308 of 2021 claim rights over the property on the
basis of the registered sale deeds dated 16.09.1954. The
authorities, while exercising their jurisdiction under Section 128
of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, have considered the
claim and allowed the appeal. However, the said order came to
be interfered, erroneously, by the Deputy Commissioner in R.P.
Nos. 117 and 118 of 2018, resulting in the direction to enter
the name of the Government in the revenue records in respect
of the subject land, without properly considering the claim of
the petitioners based on the registered sale deeds.

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59178
WP No. 20308 of 2021
C/W WP No. 13954 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010419762021




14. It is also noticed that the petitioners in W.P. No. 20308 of
2021 claim that the land in question is their private property
and that the same cannot be treated as Gomal land. The said
aspect has not been appropriately considered by the Deputy
Commissioner while passing the impugned order dated
24.02.2021.

15. I have also perused the order dated 01.08.2018 passed
by the Assistant Commissioner, wherein reference has been
made to the earlier order dated 07.05.1993 (Annexure-G in
W.P. No. 13954 of 2025). Having regard to the material on
record and the rival claims made by the parties, the
interference made by the Deputy Commissioner with the order
dated 01.08.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, is
incorrect and liable to be quashed.

16. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the
considered opinion that the impugned order dated 24.02.2021
passed by the Deputy Commissioner, insofar as it interferes
with the order dated 01.08.2018 passed by the Assistant
Commissioner in respect of the claim of the petitioners in W.P.
No. 20308 of 2021, cannot be sustained.

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59178
WP No. 20308 of 2021
C/W WP No. 13954 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010419762021




17. Accordingly, W.P. No. 20308 of 2021 deserves to be
allowed and W.P. No. 13954 of 2025 deserves to be dismissed.
Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER

(i) W.P. No. 20308 of 2021 is allowed .

(ii) The order dated 24.02.2021 passed by
respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru, in
R.P. Nos. 117 and 118 of 2018, insofar as it sets
aside the order dated 01.08.2018 passed by the
Assistant Commissioner (Annexure-D), is hereby
quashed.

(iii) The order dated 01.08.2018 passed by the
Assistant Commissioner, Mysuru, in R.A. No. 220 of
2015, is hereby confirmed.

(iv) W.P. No. 13954 of 2025 is dismissed .

(v) The Tahsildar, Mysuru Taluk, is directed to
effect necessary entries in the revenue records in
favour of the petitioners in W.P. No. 20308 of 2021,

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59178
WP No. 20308 of 2021
C/W WP No. 13954 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010419762021



in terms of the order dated 01.08.2018 passed by
the Assistant Commissioner, 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.: 8