SRI K N VASANTH vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53881-DB
WA No. 559 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010241222025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN

WRIT APPEAL NO. 559 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:
SRI K N VASANTH
S/O. LATE KK NEELAKANTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/O KODLIPET, KODAGU-571 231.
…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. NATARAJ BABA K.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS TAHSILDAR,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
KANDYA BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560 002.

2. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560 002.

3. SRI.R.LAKSHMANA,
S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/O NO.123/1 SHIVAGRAHA,
ND
APARTMENT NO.A-1, 2 CROSS,
A MAIN ROAD NETAJI ROAD,
TH
THYAGARAJANAGAR 4 BLOCK,
BANGALORE-560 028.

4. SRI.M BABU
S/O MUNIRANGAPPA
ND
R/O. NO. 51, 2 CROSS,
KANAKANAPALYA II BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 011.












Digitally signed
by MALA K N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53881-DB
WA No. 559 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010241222025


5. SRI V S KRISHNA,
S/O SUBBARAYA
TH
MAJOR, R/O N.253, 10 CROSS,
KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034.

6. S. K. MURULI MARAN
S/O. VS KRISHNA, MAJOR,
TH
R.O No. 253, 10 CROSS, KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE 560 034.

7. SMT. YASHODA,
W/O LATE S V VENKATARAMA,
TH
R/O NO.49, 26 B MAIN ROAD,
TH
PUTAYAPALYA, JAYANAGAR 9 LAYOUT,
BENGALORE-560 069.
8. SRI. S V VASUDEV,
S/O LATE S V VENKATARAMA,
TH
R/O NO.49, 26 B MAIN ROAD,
TH
PUTAYAPALYA, JAYANAGAR 9 LAYOUT,
BENGALORE-560 069.

9. SRI.S V LAKSHAMNA DEV,
S/O LATE SV VENKATARAMA,
TH
R/O NO.49, 26 B MAIN ROAD,
TH
PUTAYAPALYA, JAYANAGAR 9 LAYOUT,
BENGALORE-560 069.

10. SRI S V PRABHUDEV,
S/O SV VENKATARAMA,
TH
R/O NO.49, 26 B MAIN ROAD,
TH
PUTAYAPALYA, JAYANAGAR 9 LAYOUT,
BENGALORE-560 069.

11. SRI S V MAMATHA,
D/O.LATE SV VENKATARAM,
TH
R/O NO.49, 26 B MAIN ROAD,
TH
PUTAYAPALYA, JAYANAGAR 9 LAYOUT,
BENGALORE-560 069.

12. SRI GOWDARA MAHALINGAPPA,
S/O LATE GOWDARA JAYADEVAPPA,
R/O CHOWKIPET,
DAVANAGERE-577 001.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53881-DB
WA No. 559 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010241222025


13. SDS TUBERCULOSIS RESEARCH CENTRE
AND RAJIV GANDHI INSTITUTE
OF CHEST DISEASE
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
HOSUR ROAD BANGALORE -560 030.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

14. SRI. MONOHAR CHANDRASHEKHAR,
S/O LATE C PUTTASWAMY,
TH
R/AT NO. 14 MAIN, B.S.K.II STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 070.

15. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI BALAKRISHNA,
W/O BALAKRISHNA,
TH TH
R/AT NO.316, 25 CROSS, 9 MAIN
B.S.K. II STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 070.

16. SMT. INDIRA GOWDA,
W/O AT GOWDA,
TH
R/AT NO. 2592, 8 MAIN ROAD,
BEHIND SARASWATHI HOSPITAL,
B.S.K.II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 070.

17. SRI CHETAN S/O P VENUGOPAL,
TH TH
R/AT NO.451, 6 CROSS, 7 BLOCK (WEST),
TH
7 BLOCK (WEST) JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 027.

18. SMT.ANITA W/O PRASHANTH PRAKASH,
R/AT NO.110/8 KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT,
LALBAGH ROAD CROSS,
BENGALUEU-560 027.

19. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BANGLORE-560 002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

20. CHIEF ENGINEER (SOUTH)
SOUTH RANGE OFFICE COMPLEX,
TH
9 CROSS, 19 MAIN II BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 011.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.N.SUDEV HEGDE.,AGA FOR R1 & R2;
GBA SERVED)

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53881-DB
WA No. 559 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010241222025


THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2025 PASSED IN
WP No. 12913/2020, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND
GOOD CONSCIENCE.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY 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 H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)


The present writ appeal is directed against the common
order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.12913/2020 (KLR-RES), insofar as the reliefs sought by
the petitioner-appellant, including the challenge to the
acquisition notification, were not granted and the parties were
relegated to the remedy of approaching the competent Civil
Court.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53881-DB
WA No. 559 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010241222025


2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion,
the parties shall be referred to as per their ranks before the
learned Single Judge.

I. Facts of the petitioner:

3. The case of the petitioner is that the land bearing
Sy.No.24 measuring 4 acres 18 guntas, situated at Lalbagh-
Siddapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk,
originally belonged to one Chinnappa, who sold the same under
a registered sale deed dated 18.09.1922 in favour of
Venkatappa. Venkatappa, in turn, sold the property to
Hanumakka under a registered sale deed dated 02.09.1929 and
Hanumakka conveyed the same in favour of Muninanjamma
under a registered sale deed dated 02.04.1941. According to
the petitioner, Muninanjamma was in possession and
enjoyment of the land and the revenue entries continued in her
name. Though the land was declared as ‘Pada Land’ in 1962 on
account of arrears of land revenue, Muninanjamma is stated to
have subsequently paid the arrears, following which the
proposed auction was dropped.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53881-DB
WA No. 559 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010241222025


4. It is contended that her possession and the revenue
entries in her name continued thereafter, and that her title and
possession over the land remained undisturbed.

5. The petitioner further contends that, under a
registered agreement of sale dated 15.04.2004, he agreed to
purchase 3 acres and 8 guntas of land in Sy. No.24 from the
legal heirs of Muninanjamma. Upon their failure to execute the
sale deed, he instituted O.S. No.17185/2005 for specific
performance, which was decreed on 02.09.2006. Pursuant
thereto, in execution proceedings in Ex.P. No.15188/2006, a
sale deed was executed through the Civil Court on 19.04.2007,
followed by a confirmation deed dated 18.07.2009. His
grievance is that, although the proceedings under Section
136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act were initiated to
examine the alleged grants claimed by other private parties,
the Special Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 12.06.2020,
rejected the claim of all private parties, including the petitioner,
and directed continuation of revenue entries in favour of
respondent No.13 in respect of the entire extent of 4 acres 18
guntas.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53881-DB
WA No. 559 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010241222025



6. He also questioned the alleged acquisition
notification dated 29.09.1944, contending that the acquisition
was not completed in accordance with law and that neither
possession nor compensation was established.

II. Objections of respondent No.13:
7. Respondent No.13/SDS Tuberculosis Research
Centre and Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Chest Diseases, resisted
the writ petition contending that the entire extent of 4 acres 18
guntas in Sy.No.24 was acquired by the Government of His
Highness the Maharaja of Mysore under Notification
No.P.W.1888-90 dated 29.09.1944 for establishment of a
Tuberculosis Sanatorium. It is its specific case that the
acquisition formed part of a larger extent of about 93 acres
acquired in various survey numbers, possession was taken by
the Government and the institution was established during
1946-47.

8. It is further stated that hospital buildings, staff
quarters, mortuary and other facilities were constructed on the
acquired land and that internal roads were laid by the Public

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53881-DB
WA No. 559 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010241222025


Works Department for the use of the hospital and its patients.
Respondent No.13 also relied upon the compound wall said to
have been constructed around the acquired property during the
1970s and maintained by the institution to prevent
encroachment.

9. Respondent No.13 disputed the petitioner's claim
under the sale deed dated 19.04.2007 and contended that the
decree in O.S. No.17185/2005 was obtained ex parte against
the legal heirs of Muninanjamma, who did not contest the suit,
despite the earlier proceedings initiated before the Special
Deputy Commissioner on 18.09.2003. It was contended that
the petitioner, having knowledge of the acquisition proceedings,
could not have entered into the agreement of sale dated
15.04.2004 and thereafter obtained a decree and sale deed in
respect of land which had already vested in the Government.
Respondent No.13 further relied upon the order dated
17.07.2012 in W.P. No.4671/2010 and the report of the Court
Commissioner in W.A. No.5181/2012 to assert its possession
over the property.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53881-DB
WA No. 559 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010241222025


10. It accordingly maintained that the order dated
12.06.2020 was passed after reconsideration of the matter and
that the petitioner had no subsisting right to claim mutation or
interfere with the institution's possession.

III. Order in the writ petition:
11. The learned Single Judge, by common order dated
25.02.2025 in W.P. No.12913/2020 and connected matters,
noticed that the proceedings before the Special Deputy
Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act had originated from claims made by Sri
K.Rajendra and Sri S.K.Muralimaran for transfer of khata in
respect of 1 acre of land in Sy. No.24. The learned Judge traced
the earlier proceedings, including the Commissioner of BBMP’s
order dated 18.09.2003, the remand orders passed in W.P.
No.43535/2003 and W.P. No.4501/2006, and the subsequent
order dated 31.10.2009 passed by the Special Deputy
Commissioner.

12. The order dated 17.07.2012 in W.P. No.4671/2010
and the remand made by the Division Bench on 24.06.2013 in
W.A. No.5181/2012 were also noticed. On reconsideration, the

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53881-DB
WA No. 559 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010241222025


Special Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order dated
12.06.2020, holding that 4 acres 18 guntas in Sy.No.24 had
been acquired for the Tuberculosis Centre and rejecting the
claims of the private parties.

13. The learned Single Judge held that the dispute
raised by the parties essentially involved disputed questions of
title and that such questions could not be decided by the
revenue authorities in proceedings under Section 136(3) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Placing reliance on the decision of
the Division Bench in Smt. Jayamma and Others v. State of
1
Karnataka and Others , the learned Judge held that the
parties claiming title were required to approach the competent
Civil Court. It was further observed that the aggrieved parties
could challenge the acquisition notification, if such challenge
was permissible in law at that length of time. The findings in
the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner were confined to
revenue entries and were not to be treated as adjudication of
title. The direction to initiate criminal proceedings against the
private parties was set aside. The writ petitions were

1
ILR 2020 KAR 1449.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53881-DB
WA No. 559 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010241222025


accordingly disposed of, with liberty to the parties to pursue
their remedies before the competent forum.

IV. Grounds of appeal:
14. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.02.2025, the
petitioner has preferred the present writ appeal contending that
the learned Single Judge failed to consider the specific
challenge raised by him to the acquisition notification dated
29.09.1944 and the consequential reliefs sought in the writ
petition. It is urged that the petitioner’s claim is founded on
registered documents, namely, the agreement of sale dated
15.04.2004, the decree in O.S.No.17185/2005 dated
02.09.2006 and the sale deed executed through Court on
19.04.2007 in respect of 3 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.24, and not
on any Government grant. The appellant submits that the
notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, were issued simultaneously, and that the
mandatory procedure under Sections 9, 11, 11A and 16 was
not followed.

15. It is contended that lawful vesting of the land in the
Government and payment of compensation pursuant to the

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53881-DB
WA No. 559 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010241222025


acquisition were not established. It is further contended that
the order dated 12.06.2020, passed in under Section 136(3) of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, could not have rejected his
independent claim without examining his registered title
documents, and that the learned Single Judge, having confined
the effect of the Special Deputy Commissioner’s order to
revenue entries, ought also to have considered the challenge to
the acquisition and the consequential reliefs sought for
protection of possession and mutation of his name in the
revenue records.

16. We have heard Sri Nataraj Baba K., learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner-appellant, and Sri M.N. Sudev
Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for
respondent Nos.1 and 2/State. Upon consideration of the
pleadings, the records placed before this Court and the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties,
the following question arises for our consideration:
"Whether the petitioner-appellant has made
out any ground warranting interference with the
common order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P. No.12913/2020?"

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53881-DB
WA No. 559 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010241222025


V. Reasons and Conclusion:
17. We have considered the grounds urged in the
appeal, the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the
material placed before the Special Deputy Commissioner. The
dispute in question relates to land measuring 4 acres 18 guntas
in Sy.No.24 of Lalbagh Siddapura Village, Kasaba Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk. The appellant claims right over an
extent of 3 acres 8 guntas on the basis of the agreement of
sale dated 15.04.2004, the decree dated 02.09.2006 in O.S.
No.17185/2005 and the sale deed executed through Court on
19.04.2007. On the other hand, respondent No.13 relies upon
the acquisition notification bearing No.P.W.1888-90 dated
29.09.1944, issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, for establishment of the Tuberculosis Sanatorium.
These rival claims cannot be decided merely by examining the
revenue entries or the documents relied upon by either side.

18. The order dated 12.06.2020 was passed by the
Special Deputy Commissioner in proceedings under Section
136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The proceedings
were initiated in the background of claims made by private

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53881-DB
WA No. 559 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010241222025


parties for transfer of khata in respect of portions of Sy.No.24.
The authority, while examining those claims, proceeded to
record findings touching upon the acquisition of the entire
extent of 4 acres 18 guntas and the rights asserted by the
respective parties. The learned Single Judge has rightly noticed
that the jurisdiction exercised under Section 136(3) is not
intended to determine complicated questions of title or to
declare the validity of rival conveyances. The authority could
not have converted the revenue proceedings into an
adjudication of ownership between the appellant and
respondent No.13.

19. The petitioner's reliance upon the decree in O.S.
No.17185/2005 and the sale deed dated 19.04.2007, by itself,
does not enable this Court to pronounce upon his title to the
property as against respondent No.13, which asserts that the
land had already been acquired in the year 1944. Equally, the
claim of respondent No.13 that the acquisition was completed,
possession was taken and the institution was established on the
acquired land cannot be treated as conclusively proved merely
on the basis of revenue entries or the findings recorded by the

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53881-DB
WA No. 559 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010241222025


Special Deputy Commissioner. Any amount of contentions
advanced by the appellant and respondent No.13 regarding the
entries standing in their respective names would be of no
consequence for deciding the question of title. It is well settled
that revenue entries are maintained for fiscal purposes and do
not, by themselves, create or extinguish title to immovable
property.

20. The learned Single Judge has therefore rightly left
the parties to work out their remedies before the competent
Civil Court. If the appellant claims title under the sale deed
executed pursuant to the decree in O.S. No.17185/2005, and
respondent No.13 asserts that the property stood acquired
under the notification dated 29.09.1944, it is for the competent
Civil Court to examine the documents, the acquisition
proceedings, the question of possession and the legal effect of
the respective claims. The learned Single Judge has also
observed that the aggrieved parties may challenge the
acquisition notification, if such a challenge is permissible in law,
having regard to the considerable lapse of time. The
observations made by the Special Deputy Commissioner were

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53881-DB
WA No. 559 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010241222025


expressly confined to revenue entries and were not to be
understood as a declaration of title.

21. We also find that the learned Single Judge has not
adjudicated the title of either the appellant or respondent
No.13, nor has the order foreclosed the remedies available to
them in accordance with law. On the contrary, the parties have
been left at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for
adjudication of their respective rights in respect of Sy.No.24,
measuring 4 acres 18 guntas, including the extent of 3 acres 8
guntas claimed by the appellant. The direction to set aside the
order initiating criminal proceedings is also based on the limits
of the revenue authority's jurisdiction in the proceedings under
Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

22. We find no error in the approach adopted by the
learned Single Judge warranting interference in this appeal.

23. No grounds are made out to interfere with the well-
reasoned order.

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed .

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53881-DB
WA No. 559 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010241222025


The order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.12913/2020 (KLR-RES) is hereby affirmed.

No order as to costs.
Pending I.As. stand disposed of.

Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
JUDGE











KNM
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2