SRI. B. C. THIMMARAYAPPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
SB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 51713 OF 2016 (KLR-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 46778 OF 2016 (KLR-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 51712 OF 2016 (KLR-RR/SUR)
WRIT PETITION NO. 52310 OF 2016 (KLR-RR/SUR)
IN WP No. 51713/2016
BETWEEN:
M/S ELECTROHMS PRIVATE LIMITED,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.67/6-1,
INDUSTRIAL SUBURB ULLAS THEATRE ROAD,
YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE-560022,
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR,
MR. GIRIDHARA M.S.,
S/O SATHYANARAYANA M.S,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
…PETITIONER
Digitally signed
by CHAYA S A
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI G SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
BANGALORE-560001.
2.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE SOUTH, SUB DIVISION,
BANGALORE-560001.
3. TAHASILDAR,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560001.
4. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE SOUTH, SUB DIVISION,
BANGALORE-560001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ADITYA DIWAKARA, AGA FOR R1 TO 4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTILCES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER ENCLOSED ANNEXURE-K VIDE NO. RRT
(2) CR 62/2007-2008 DATED 09.02.2009 IN SO FAR AS IT
RELATES TO SY.NO.122/14 PURCHASED BY THE PETITIONER
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 46778/2016
BETWEEN:
1. SRI B. C. THIMMARAYAPPA,
SON OF LATE CHANNAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1084, 1ST MAIN,
5TH CROSS, KENGERI UPANAGARA,
BANGALORE-560 060.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
2. SRI G. VENKATESH,
SON OF LATE B.C. GUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.13 A/24,
2ND MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
BAPUJINAGAR, MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 026.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M C JAYA KIRTHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
KHANDAYA BHAVANA,
K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHAMANTH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO 3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF R-2 IN CASE NO.RRT(2)
CR.62/2007-08 AS PER ANNEXURE-T AND TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.03.2016 PASSED BY R-2 IN
CASE NO.RRT(2) CR.62/2007-08 AS PER ANNEXURE-T IN
SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE LANDS BEARING
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
SY.NO.122/1 (122/11) AND SY.NO.235 OF KENGERI
VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE.
IN WP NO. 51712/2016
BETWEEN:
MR. GAUTHAM KRISHNAN,
S/O N KRISHNAN,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT A1, CHARTER HOUSE,
NO.36, 7TH CROSS, LAVELLE ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI G SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA ,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE SOUTH, SUB DIVISION,
BANGALORE-560001.
3. SPECIAL TAHASILDAR,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHAMANTH NAIK, AGA FOR R-1 TO 3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 27 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
IMPUGNED ORDERS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-K VIDE NO
RRT (2) CR 62/2007-2008 DATED.22.3.2016 IN SO FAR AS
IT RELATES TO SY.NO.122/14 PURCHASED BY THE
PETITIONER.
IN WP NO. 52310/2016
BETWEEN:
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED FINANCIAL
ANALYSTS OF INDIA,
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES
REGISTRATION ACT HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT
NO.52, NAGARJUNA HILLS, HYDERABAD 500082,
REPTD. BY ITS DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,
SRI ALUR SUDHAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
ICFAI CAMPUS, BANGALORE 560060.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHANDRA SHEKAR R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDINGS, BANGALORE 560001.
2.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD,
BANGALORE 560001.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD,
BANGALORE 560001.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHAMANTH NAIK, AGA FOR R-1 TO 3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.3.2016 PASSED BY THE R-2
IN CASE NO.RRT(2) CR.62/2007-08 VIDE ANENXURE-W IN
SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE LAND BEARING SY
NO.122/2 RENUMBERED A SY. NO.276, MEASURING 4
ACRES IN EXTENT, SITUATED AT KENGERI VILLAGE,
KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE
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
ORAL ORDER
1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are
assailing the order dated 22.03.2016 passed by the
respondent–Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, in
RRT (2) C.R. No. 62/2007-08, whereby the grant
made in favour of the original grantees has been
cancelled by the competent authority.
In W.P.No.51713 of 2026
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
2. The petitioner submits that the land in question
was granted in favour of one Muniyappa on
24.10.1934. Thereafter, several sale transactions
took place in respect of the said land, and the
petitioner acquired an extent of 25 guntas in land
bearing Sy. No. 122/14, situated at Kengeri Village,
Bengaluru South Taluk, under a registered sale deed
dated 27.02.1985.
3. It is further forthcoming from the records that
the land in question was converted on 26.08.1965
(Annexure-F). Therefore, it is the contention of the
petitioner that, having regard to the fact that the
land was granted in favour of the original grantee,
Muniyappa, as far back as in the year 1934, the
initiation of proceedings by respondent No. 4–Special
Deputy Commissioner, on 09.02.2009, and the
subsequent order dated 22.03.2016 passed by the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
respondent–Deputy Commissioner, upholding the
said proceedings (Annexure-N), after a lapse of
several decades, are unsustainable. Accordingly, the
petitioner seeks interference by this Court.
for interference of this court.
In W.P.No.46778 of 2016
4. The petitioner submits that the land in question
was granted in favour of Punji Rao, as evidenced by
the grant certificate dated 13.11.1934 (Annexure-A).
Thereafter, several transactions took place in respect
of the land bearing Sy. No. 122/1, measuring 4
acres, and the petitioner's father acquired the said
land under a registered sale deed dated 16.12.1948.
5. Therefore, it is contended that the initiation of
proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, “the Act”), after
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
a lapse of nearly six decades, amounts to belated
action on the part of the respondent-authorities.
Accordingly, the petitioner seeks interference by this
Court.
In W.P.No.51712 of 2016
6. In the present writ petition, it is the case of the
petitioner that the land in question was granted in
favour of one Muniyappa, as per the grant order
dated 24.10.1934. Thereafter, several transactions
took place in respect of the subject land, and the
petitioner acquired an extent of 4 acres and 15
guntas under a registered sale deed dated
27.02.1985.
7. It is further stated in the writ petition that the
respondent-authorities initiated suo motu
proceedings after a lapse of nearly six decades, while
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
the petitioner continues to be in possession and
cultivation of the land in question. The petitioner had
earlier challenged the order dated 09.02.2009
passed by the competent authority (Annexure-F)
before this Court in W.P. No. 25115 of 2009. This
Court, by order dated 16.10.2009 (Annexure-G),
allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to
the competent authority for fresh consideration.
8. Thereafter, the respondent-authorities passed
the impugned order, which is challenged in the
present writ petition on the ground that the
proceedings were initiated after a lapse of nearly six
decades from the date of the original grant.
In W.P.No.52310 of 2016
9. The petitioner claims to be the owner of land
bearing Sy. No. 122 (Sy. No. 122/12), presently
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
renumbered as Sy. No. 276, measuring 4 acres and
situated at Kengeri Village. It is contended that the
said land originally belonged to Sri Nanjappa, son of
Kakappa, and that Nanjappa had acquired the same
under a grant order. Thereafter, the original grantee
sold the said land in favour of Mrs. Sudharshan
Juneja under a registered sale deed dated
04.08.1961.
10. It is further submitted that the land in question
was converted for industrial purposes on 19.09.1980
(Annexure-E), and subsequently, permission was
granted for conversion of the land for the purpose of
establishing an educational institution on 20.05.2010
(Annexure-E).
11. In view of the above, it is contended that the
belated action initiated by the respondent-authorities
to interfere with the grant made in favour of the
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
original grantee, Nanjappa, is unsustainable.
Accordingly, the petitioner seeks interference by this
Court.
12. Heard learned counsels Sri. G. Sridhar, Sri.
Chandrashekar, R., and Sri. M. C. Jaya Kirthi,
appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Shamanth naik,
and Sri. Aditya Diwakara, learned Additional
Government Advocates appearing for the
respondent-State.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
contended that, though the land in question was
granted in favour of the original grantees on
13.11.1934, several transactions subsequently took
place in respect of the subject land, and the
petitioners herein are the subsequent purchasers
who have developed the land after obtaining
conversion for non-agricultural purposes. Therefore,
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
it is contended that the initiation of proceedings by
the respondent-authorities is contrary to law, in view
of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Yekkanti Ramma Lakshmamma v. State of
Karnataka , reported in Civil Appeal No. 1390 of
2009, decided on 26.08.2017. Accordingly, learned
counsel for the petitioners contended that the
initiation of suo motu proceedings after a lapse of
nearly six decades is unsustainable in law.
14. Per contra, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the respondent-State sought
to justify the impugned order passed by the
respondent-authorities, contending that the very
grant made in favour of the original grantees is
doubtful. It is further contended that the
genuineness of the grant orders was examined by
the revenue authorities, who found that the
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
petitioners were claiming rights over the subject
property on the basis of fabricated grant orders.
Accordingly, learned Additional Government
Advocate sought dismissal of the writ petitions.
15. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties, it is evident that the petitioners are claiming
rights over the subject properties on the basis of the
original grant orders stated to have been issued in
favour of the respective grantees in the year 1934, in
respect of different extent of land in Sy. No. 122 of
Kengeri Village. Thereafter, several sale transactions
took place in respect of the subject lands, and
conversion orders were also issued permitting the
use of the lands for industrial and educational
purposes.
16. It is further evident from the records that the
Special Deputy Commissioner, by order dated
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
09.02.2009, rejected the claims of the petitioners
regarding the genuineness of the grants pertaining to
the subject lands. The said order was challenged
before this Court in W.P. No. 21568 of 2009
connected with W.P. No. 21832 of 2009, decided on
27.07.2009 (Annexure-K in W.P. No. 46778 of
2016); W.P. No. 25115 of 2009, decided on
16.10.2009 (Annexure-F in W.P. No. 51712 of 2016);
and W.P. Nos. 26646 of 2009 and 26867 of 2009,
decided on 18.11.2009 (Annexure-U in W.P. No.
52310 of 2016).
17. In the aforesaid writ petitions, this Court set
aside the respective impugned orders and remitted
the matters to the Special Deputy Commissioner for
fresh consideration, with a direction to examine the
entries in the original records and take an
appropriate decision in accordance with law.
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
18. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the Deputy
Commissioner, Bengaluru, examined the original
records and the sale deeds executed in respect of the
subject lands and recorded a finding that the
documents produced by the petitioners were
reflected in the IL and RR copies.
19. In the above circumstances, I am of the view
that the findings recorded by the Deputy
Commissioner, Bengaluru, warrant reconsideration.
Further, suo motu proceedings in respect of the
subject lands were initiated after a lapse of nearly six
decades from the date of the alleged original grants.
20. In identical circumstances, this Court, in W.P.
No. 302 of 2024 and connected writ petitions,
decided on 30.07.2026, at paragraph 6, held as
follows:
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
“6. It is also forthcoming from the arguments
advanced by the learned AGA that the impugned
proceedings have been initiated by the Tahasildar
based on the Government Order dated 10.10.2014
(Annexure-B in W.P.No.302/2024). However,
looking into the well settled principle in law that as
the original Authority itself had granted the lands
in favour of the respondents herein based on the
documents produced by them, the same cannot be
considered as illegal. It is not in dispute that the
lands in question are patta lands and that the
grants have been made during 1970s and 1980s
pursuant to the public auction conducted during
the said period, which is more than four decades
ago and in that view of the matter, I am of the
view that no interference is called for in these
petitions. 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 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;
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
"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
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
otherwise, 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
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
effect on the rights of the third parties over
the immovable property due to passage of
considerable time, change of hands by
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
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
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 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
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
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 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
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
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 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
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
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 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
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
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
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
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
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 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
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
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 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
that the
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
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
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
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
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
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 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,
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
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-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
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
- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
and interest of the allottee
and of every other person
claiming through him in the
land allotted shall cease.
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."
21. In view of the declaration of law by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the judgments referred to supra,
including the judgment in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi
v. State of Karnataka , it is well settled that the
respondent-authorities are required to initiate suo-
motu proceedings within a reasonable period.
- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
22. However, a perusal of the impugned order
would indicate that the proceedings in the present
case were initiated after a lapse of nearly six decades
from the date of the original grant. Further, the
subject lands have been converted for non-
agricultural purposes and developed, with
constructions having been raised thereon. In the
aforesaid circumstances, I find considerable force in
the submissions made by learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners.
23. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petitions are allowed .
(ii) The impugned order dated 22.03.2016 passed by
the respondent–Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru
District, in RRT (2) C.R. No. 62/2007-08, in respect
- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57427
WP No. 51713 of 2016
C/W WP No. 46778 of 2016
WP No. 51712 of 2016
AND 1 OTHER
CNR: KAHC010119742016
of the subject lands involved in the aforesaid writ
petitions, is hereby set aside.
(iii) The Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, is directed
to enter the names of the petitioners in the revenue
records in respect of the respective subject lands, in
accordance with law, forthwith.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74