SRI K S LOKESH vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56913
WP No. 14860 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010291492021








IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 14860 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)


BETWEEN:

1. SRI K S LOKESH
S/O LATE SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT KALMANE VILLAGE
GABGAL POST, BALUR HOBLI
MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 577 201








…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH PRASAD H N.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

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

2.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 201.

3.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHIKKAMAGALURU
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 201.

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

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56913
WP No. 14860 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010291492021



4. THE TAHSILDAR
MUDIGERE TALUK, MUDIGERE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 201.

5. SRI RAMESH
THE THEN TAHSILDAR
MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 201.

6. SRI M P KUMARASWAMY
SITTING MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
MUDIGERE CONSTITUENCY, MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 201.

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHAMANTH NAIK, AGA, FOR R1 TO R4,
R5 & R6 - SD. & UNREPRESENTED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIO OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 01.06.2021 PASSED BY THE R-4
TAHSILDAR, MUDIGERE, PRODUCED AT ANNX-V.DIRECT THE
R-4 TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE R-6 UNDER
SECTION 192(A) OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964
AND APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS TO RECOVER THE
GOVERNMENT LAND MEASURING 9.3 ACRES IN SURVEY NO.49
OF KALMANE VILLAGE, MUDIGERE TALUK, IN THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order
dated 01.06.2021 (Annexure-V) passed by the respondent

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56913
WP No. 14860 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010291492021



No.4 inter alia, sought for direction to the respondent No.4
to initiate proceedings against the respondent No.6 under
Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

2. Sri Manjunath Prasad H N, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner refers to the order of grant
made by the respondent - Authorities insofar as Annexure
- C, wherein an extent of 2.00 acres of land at Kalmane
Village, Baluru Hobli, Mudigere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru
District was granted in favour of the father of the
petitioner herein and also the grant order dated
25.07.1979 to an extent of 3.00 acres of land at Kalmane
Village, Baluru Hobli, Mudigere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru
District, to the mother of the petitioner.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner by referring to the RTC
extracts produced at Annexure-H, and submitted that, the
parents of the petitioner were in cultivation of the land in
question and have a coffee plantation, and the same is

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56913
WP No. 14860 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010291492021



reflected in the RTC extracts, and in that view of the
matter, the finding recorded by the respondent No.4 in the
impugned order at Annexure-V is at the instance of the
direction issued by the respondent No.6 herein is
incorrect, and therefore, submitted that, the impugned
order requires to be interfered with in this writ petition.

4. Per contra , Sri Shamanth Naik, learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for the
respondent - State, submitted that, the land in question
was not under cultivation for a considerable period, and
therefore, the respondent No.4 after conducting the
enquiry, has arrived at a conclusion that, the land in
question was not under cultivation, and accordingly, the
grant made in favour of the father and mother of the
petitioner has been interfered with by the respondent
No.4, and accordingly, sought to justify the impugned
order.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56913
WP No. 14860 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010291492021



5. In the light of the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in
dispute as per Annexures-C and D that, land to an extent
of 2.00 acres of land and the land to an extent of 3.00
acres of Kalmane Village, was granted to the father and
mother of the petitioner respectively by the respondent -
Authorities. It is also forthcoming from the writ papers as
to the civil litigation between the petitioner and the
respondent No.6 in the writ petition. However taking into
consideration the order dated 13.08.2019 (Annexure - L)
passed by this Court in WP No.15826/2019, wherein this
Court has directed the respondent - Authorities to conduct
phodi and durasth work in respect of the subject land by
considering the representation made by the petitioner.
However, the respondent - Authorities have failed to
conduct the phodi and durasth on the ground that, the
land in question was not under cultivation by the
petitioner. However, taking into consideration the RTC
extracts produced at Annexure - H series, wherein it is

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56913
WP No. 14860 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010291492021



stated that, the coffee plantation has been made in the
subject land by the petitioner herein.

6. In that view of the matter, since the land in
question has been granted in favour of the father and
mother of the petitioner way back in 1974 and after lapse
of four decades, the respondent - Authorities have
interfered with the grant made in favour of the petitioner
is without application of mind, and therefore, I find force
in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner that, the belated action at the instance of
the respondent - Authorities is improper. In this regard,
this Court in WP No.29003/2019, has considered the
identical matters and passed the following order which
reads as under:

"It is also to be noted that, in an identical matter in
W.P.No.29003/2019, this Court has considered the
very same issue. Paragraph Nos.8 to 10 of the said
order are relevant and the same extracted, which
reads as under;

"8. This Court in identical circumstances in
W.P.No.29052/2019 c/w W.P.No.29051/2019 disposed of

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56913
WP No. 14860 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010291492021



on 31.10.2023 and W.P.No.46616/2017 disposed of on
09.10.2023 at paragraph Nos.13 to 16 has held as
follows;

"13. It is settled position of law that where no time
is prescribed for exercise of suo motu revisionary
powers, the same must be exercised within a reasonable
period of time and is impermissible otherwise.


14. Even where fraud is alleged, delay would
defeat the action of State to unsettle entries in long
continuance especially where rights of third parties are
created in the intervening period of inaction by the State.

15. The observations of the Apex Court as regards
the above aspects may be kept in mind before examining
the legal position in light of the present facts. The
leading judgment is that of the Apex Court in Joint
Collector Ranga Reddy District and Another v. D.
Narsing Rao and Others1 [Joint Collector Ranga
Reddy District] . The Apex Court has held that it is
impermissible for the exercise of revisional powers under
Section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
Land Revenue Act, 1317 F as regards alleged fraudulent
entries when such power was sought to be exercised
after 50 years.

"25. The legal position is fairly well
settled by a long line of decisions of this Court
which have laid down that even when there is
no period of limitation prescribed for the
exercise of any power, revisional or otherwise,

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56913
WP No. 14860 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010291492021



such power must be exercised within a
reasonable period. This is so even in cases
where allegations of fraud have necessitated
the exercise of any corrective power. We may
briefly refer to some of the decisions only to
bring home the point that the absence of a
stipulated period of limitation makes little or
no difference insofar as the exercise of the
power is concerned which ought to be
permissible only when the power is invoked
within a reasonable period.

27. To the same effect is the decision
of this Court in Ibrahimpatnam Taluk
Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh
Reddy [(2003) 7 SCC 667] wherein this Court
held that even in cases of fraud the revisional
power must be exercised within a reasonable
period and that several factors need to be
kept in mind while deciding whether relief
should be denied only on the ground of delay.
The Court said: (SCC p. 677, para 9)

“9. … In cases of fraud, this power
could be exercised within a reasonable time
from the date of detection or discovery of
fraud. While exercising such power, several
factors need to be kept in mind such as effect
on the rights of the third parties over the
immovable property due to passage of
considerable time, change of hands by

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56913
WP No. 14860 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010291492021



subsequent bona fide transfers, the orders
attaining finality under the provisions of other
Acts (such as the Land Ceiling Act).”

28. To the same effect is the view
taken by this Court in Sulochana Chandrakant
Galande v. Pune Municipal Transport [(2010)
8 SCC 467 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 415] wherein
this Court reiterated the legal position and
held that the power to revise orders and
proceedings cannot be exercised arbitrarily
and interminably. This Court observed: (SCC
p. 476, para 28)

“28. The legislature in its wisdom did
not fix a time-limit for exercising the
revisional power nor inserted the words at any
time’ in Section 34 of the 1976 Act. It does
not mean that the legislature intended to
leave the orders passed under the Act open to
variation for an indefinite period inasmuch as
it would have the effect of rendering title of
the holders/allottee(s) permanently precarious
and in a state of perpetual uncertainty. In
case it is assumed that the legislature has
conferred an everlasting and interminable
power in point of time, the title over the
declared surplus land, in the hands of the
State/allottee, would forever remain virtually
insecure. The Court has to construe the
statutory provision in a way which makes the

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56913
WP No. 14860 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010291492021



provisions workable, advancing the purpose
and object of enactment of the statute.”

29. In State of H.P. v. Rajkumar
Brijender Singh [(2004) 10 SCC 585] this
Court held that in the absence of any special
circumstances a delay of 15 years in suo motu
exercise of revisional power was impermissible
as the delay was unduly long and
unexplained. This Court observed: (SCC pp.
588-89, para 6)

“6. We are now left with the second
question which was raised by the respondents
before the High Court, namely, the delayed
exercise of the power under sub-section (3) of
Section 20. As indicated above, the Financial
Commissioner exercised the power after 15
years of the order of the Collector. It is true
that sub-section (3) provides that such a
power may be exercised at any time but this
expression does not mean there would be no
time-limit or it is in infinity. All that is meant is
that such powers should be exercised within a
reasonable time. No fixed period of limitation
may be laid but unreasonable delay in
exercise of the power would tend to undo the
things which have attained finality. It depends
on the facts and circumstances of each case
as to what is the reasonable time within which
the power of suo motu action could be

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56913
WP No. 14860 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010291492021



exercised. For example, in this case, as the
appeal had been withdrawn but the Financial
Commissioner had taken up the matter in
exercise of his suo motu power, it could well
be open for the State to submit that the facts
and circumstances were such that it would be
within reasonable time but as we have already
noted that the order of the Collector which has
been interfered with was passed in January
1976 and the appeal preferred by the State
was also withdrawn sometime in March 1976.
The learned counsel for the appellant was not
able to point out such other special facts and
circumstances by reason of which it could be
said that exercise of suo motu power after 15
years of the order interfered with was within a
reasonable time. That being the position in
our view, the order of the Financial
Commissioner stands vitiated having been
passed after a long lapse of 15 years of the
order which has been interfered with.
Therefore, while holding that the Financial
Commissioner would have power to proceed
suo motu in a suitable case even though an
appeal preferred before the lower appellate
authority is withdrawn, may be, by the State.
Thus, the view taken by the High Court is not
sustainable. But the order of the Financial
Commissioner suffers from the vice of the
exercise of the power after unreasonable lapse

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56913
WP No. 14860 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010291492021



of time and such delayed action on his part
nullifies the order passed by him in exercise of
power under sub-section (3) of Section 20.”

30. We may also refer to the decision
of this Court in Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co.
Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur [(1992) 2 SCC
598 : AIR 1993 SC 802] wherein the Court
explained the legal position as under: (SCC
pp. 602-03, para 13)

“13. The rule which says that the Court
may not enquire into belated and stale claim
is not a rule of law but a rule of practice based
on sound and proper exercise of discretion.
Each case must depend upon its own facts. It
will all depend on what the breach of the
fundamental right and the remedy claimed are
and how delay arose. The principle on which
the relief to the party on the grounds of laches
or delay is denied is that the rights which have
accrued to others by reason of the delay in
filing the petition should not be allowed to be
disturbed unless there is a reasonable
explanation for the delay. The real test to
determine delay in such cases is that the
petitioner should come to the writ court before
a parallel right is created and that the lapse of
time is not attributable to any laches or
negligence. The test is not as to physical
running of time. Where the circumstances

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56913
WP No. 14860 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010291492021



justifying the conduct exist, the illegality
which is manifest cannot be sustained on the
sole ground of laches. The decision in
Tilokchand case [Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B.
Munshi, (1969) 1 SCC 110] relied on is
distinguishable on the facts of the present
case. The levy if based on the net profits of
the railway undertaking was beyond the
authority and the illegal nature of the same
has been questioned though belatedly in the
pending proceedings after the pronouncement
of the High Court in the matter relating to the
subsequent years. That being the case, the
claim of the appellant cannot be turned down
on the sole ground of delay. We are of the
opinion that the High Court was wrong in
dismissing the writ petition in limine and
refusing to grant the relief sought for. We
however agree that the suit has been rightly
dismissed.”

31. To sum up, delayed exercise of
revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because
if actions or transactions were to remain
forever open to challenge, it will mean
avoidable and endless uncertainty in human
affairs, which is not the policy of law.
Because, even when there is no period of
limitation prescribed for exercise of such
powers, the intervening delay, may have led

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56913
WP No. 14860 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010291492021



to creation of third-party rights, that cannot
be trampled by a belated exercise of a
discretionary power especially when no cogent
explanation for the delay is in sight. Rule of
law it is said must run closely with the rule of
life. Even in cases where the orders sought to
be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of
power must be within a reasonable period of
the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an
act or transaction to be fraudulent will not
extend the time for its correction to infinity;
for otherwise the exercise of revisional power
would itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the
statute that vests such power in an authority.

32. In the case at hand, while the entry
sought to be corrected is described as
fraudulent, there is nothing in the notice
impugned before the High Court as to when
was the alleged fraud discovered by the State.
A specific statement in that regard was
essential for it was a jurisdictional fact, which
ought to be clearly asserted in the notice
issued to the respondents. The attempt of the
appellant State to demonstrate that the notice
was issued within a reasonable period of the
discovery of the alleged fraud is, therefore,
futile. At any rate, when the Government
allowed the land in question for housing sites
to be given to government employees in the

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56913
WP No. 14860 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010291492021



year 1991, it must be presumed to have
known about the record and the revenue
entries concerning the parcel of land made in
the ordinary course of official business.
Inasmuch as, the notice was issued as late as
on 31-12-2004, it was delayed by nearly 13
years. No explanation has been offered even
for this delay assuming that the same ought
to be counted only from the year 1991.
Judged from any angle the notice seeking to
reverse the entries made half a century ago,
was clearly beyond reasonable time and was
rightly quashed."

16. In the present petition, the petitioner has
assailed the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed
under Section 136(3) of the Act. In the said impugned
order, the Deputy Commissioner had framed the
following issue for consideration:-
"(ii) Whether the entries reflected in the
name of alleged original grantee Shri
Channakeshavaiah and subsequently in the
names of the purchaser of the land
Smt.Swaramayee, mother of the
Respondent and later in the name of the
Respondent in the revenue records stand to
reason?"

10. Following the judgment passed by this Court in
the aforementioned writ petitions, it is also forthcoming
from the arguments advanced by the learned counsel

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56913
WP No. 14860 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010291492021



appearing for the private respondents that, in
W.P.No.29052/2019 c/w W.P.No.29051/2019 disposed
of on 31.10.2023 in respect of the very same survey
number, wherein this Court had an occasion to consider
the validity of the suo motu proceedings initiated by the
Authorities. Needless to state that, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of SHYAMO DEVI AND OTHERS Vs.
STATE OF U.P THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS
reported in AIR 2024 SC 2862 , at paragraph Nos.11 to
15 reads as under;
11. Thus, it emerges from the afore-stated facts
authorities initiated the proceedings for cancellation of the
that the
allotment initially based on the report dated 13.06.2007 of the
Lekhpal which was undisputedly after 13 years from the date of
allotment. It is no doubt true that there is no limitation fixed for
initiation of the proceedings under the UPZALR Act as contended by
the learned Counsel for the Respondents. This Court in
Additional Commssioner, Revenue and thers v. Akhalaq
Hussain and Another, (2020) 4 SCC 507 vide paragraph
28 has held that sub-section (6) of Section 122C
empowers the collector to enquire with regard to the
manner of allotment being irregular and may proceed to
cancel the allotment if he satisfies that such allotment is
irregular. Section 122C (6) reads as under:
“122C (6) The Collector may of his own motion
and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by
an allotment of land under this section inquire in the
manner prescribed into such allotment, and if he is
satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56913
WP No. 14860 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010291492021



the allotment, and thereupon the right, title and interest
of the allottee and of every other person claiming
through him in the land allotted shall cease.”

12. However, the question which requires to be
addressed is whether such initiation of the proceedings
can be at any length of time or at any point of time
where no limitation is prescribed. This Court in State of
Punjab Vs. Bhatinda Milk Producer Union Limited
reported in (2007) 11 SCC 363 has held:

“18. It is trite that if no period of limitation has
been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its
jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however,
shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the
nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder
and other relevant factors.”

13. This Court had an occasion to consider similar
issue in the matter of Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya
Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy, (2003) 7 SCC 667
namely the exercise of suo moto power under sub-
section (4) of Section 50-B of Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act,
1950 (for short ‘AP Act’) i.e., can it be at any time or
such power is to be exercised within a reasonable time
and if so, within what time? The facts obtained in the
said case was that the owners of the subtle land
executed various sale deeds in favour of different
persons on plain paper and possession of the lands was

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56913
WP No. 14860 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010291492021



also delivered to the purchasers. The vendees applied
under Section 50-B of the AP Act for validation of sales
and the concerned Tehsildar issued validation certificates
on various dates. The said orders of the Tehsildar came
to be challenged before the Joint Collector of the District
by the Special Tehsildar and authorised officer (land
reforms) which appeals came to be dismissed in 1988. It
is thereafter the Joint Collector issued show cause
notices purporting to exercise the suo moto power under
sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act to both the
vendors and the vendees as to why the validation
certificates issued in the year 1974 or earlier should not
be cancelled after considering the objections filed in
response to the show cause notices, the Joint Collector
set aside the validation certificates in 1989. The learned
Single Judge before whom challenge was laid accepted
the plea of the writ petitioners by arriving at a conclusion
that suo moto power of revision ought to have been
exercised within a reasonable period, though Section 50-
B (4) of the Act empowers the authority to exercise such
suo moto power at any time. The impleading applicants
who had filed the complaint, assailed the order of
learned Single Judge before the Division Bench without
success. In so far as the validation certificates which
were found to be fraught with fraud came to be set aside
by the Division Bench and also taking into account that
the parties did not produce the documents.

14. Sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the AP Act
can be juxtaposition with sub-section (6) of Section 122-

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56913
WP No. 14860 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010291492021



C of the UPZALR Act for immediate reference and it
reads:
Section 122-C(6)
Section 50-B (4)
of UPZALR Act
of AP Act
122-C (6) The Collector
may of his own motion and
shall on the application of
any person aggrieved by an
allotment of land under this
section inquire in the
manner prescribed into
such allotment, and if he is
satisfied that the allotment
is irregular, he may cancel
the allotment, and
thereupon the right, title
and interest of the allottee
and of every other person
claiming through him in the
land allotted shall cease.
50-B (4) The Collector
may, suo-motu at any
time, call for and examine
the record relating to any
certificate issued or
proceedings taken by the
Tahsildar under this
section for the purpose of
satisfying himself as to the
legality or propriety of
such certificate or as to
the regularity of such
proceedings and pass such
order in relation thereto as
he may think fit: Provided
that no order adversely
affecting any person shall
be passed under this sub-
section unless such person
has had an opportunity of
making his representation
thereto.

10. Following the declaration of law made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned
judgments, as the respondent No.14 - Authority has
initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 136(3) of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 after lapse of 5
decades without there being any acceptable reasons,
I am of the view that no interference is called for in this
case."

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56913
WP No. 14860 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010291492021



7. Following the declaration of law made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in the
aforementioned judgments, I am of the view that, the
finding recorded by the respondent No.4 that there is no
plantation in the subject land despite the petitioner herein
has produced the RTC extracts at Annexure-H series would
indicate the arbitrary exercise of power by the respondent
No.4.

In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The writ petition is allowed.

ii) The order dated 01.06.2021 (Annexure-V)
passed by the respondent No.4 is accordingly
set aside.

iii) The respondent No.4 is directed to enter the
name of the petitioner in respect of the subject
land in the revenue records and to conduct
phodi and durasth in respect of the land in
question within a period of six months from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56913
WP No. 14860 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010291492021



with the assistance of the jurisdictional
Assistant Director of Land Records.

iv) Taking into consideration the observation made
by this Court in WP No.15826/2019 dated
13.08.2019 (Annexure-L), as the writ petition
came to be allowed, I am of view that, no
interference is called for insofar as the prayer -
(b) in the writ petition is concerned.


Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE











BKM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41