MR SONNAPPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48030-DB
WA No. 1595 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010621022024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


ND
DATED THIS THE 2 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. 1595 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. MR. SONNAPPA,
S/O LATE NARAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
KUNDANA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI,
BANGALORE RURAL, BANGALORE 562 110.

2. MR. SHIVRAJ M S/O MUNINARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT, FLAT NO. 1700/14,
TH TH
C-BLOCK, 27 CROSS, 7 MAIN,
SAHAKARANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 092.

3. MR. SARAVANANA K S/O C. KATHIRVEL,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT, NO.31/A, GROUND FLOOR,
TH
VASANTHA NILAYAM, 5 A CROSS,
SHANBOUGH LAYOUT, DODDAREKUNDI,
BENGALURU-560 037.

4. MR. MOHAMMED TAZIM RAWAT
S/O MAJOR ATTEQ MOHAMMED,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT, IST FLOOR, MUKUND APARTMENT,
PALM GRAND ROAD, VICTORIA LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560 047.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ S. JAIN, ADVOCATE)











Digitally signed
by B VEENA
KUMARI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48030-DB
WA No. 1595 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010621022024


AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MS BUILDING,
DR. BR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN,
CAUVERY BHAVAN, KG ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 009.

3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU-560 001.

4. THE TAHSAILDAR
YALAHANKA TALUK, NES OFFICE ROAD,
SUGAPPA LAYOUT, EAST COLONY, YALAHANKA,
BENGALURU-560 064.
5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN POLICE STATION
BENGALURU-560 064.

6. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU-560 064.

7. SRI. AZMATH ULLAH KHAN
S/O LATE IBRAHIM KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
ST
RESIDING AT, NO.295, 1 MAIN,
RD
OPPOSITE VIS CO-OP BANK, BSK, 3 STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 085.

8. SRI. G VENKATARAMANA
S/O GCK SOMAYAJI,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
ST
RESIDING AT, NO.295, 1 MAIN,
RD
VIDYAPEETA ROAD, BSK, 3 STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 085.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48030-DB
WA No. 1595 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010621022024


9.






10.







11.






12.







13.





14.




SMT UMAVENKAT
W/O G. VENKATARAMANA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
ST
RESIDING AT, NO.295, 1 MAIN,
RD
VIDYAPEETA ROAD, BSK 3 STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 085.

MRS.LALITHA KUMARI,
W/O K.P.PALAKSHA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SRIRANGA NILAYA,
TH
4 WARD, TANK ROAD, RAJIPURA,
DODDABALLAPURA,
BANGALORE RURAL, BANGALORE – 561 203.

SMT.VEENA H W/O LATE NARAGANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 16/7, SESHADRI NILAYA,
HALLAPANAHALLI, HOSKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU – 562 114.

P.CHANDRASHEKAR,
S/O LATE PURSHOTHAM NANDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
ND
NO.23/1, FLAT NO.E2, 2 FLOOR,
RD
LOTUS HEIGHTS, 3 MAIN ROAD,
SULTAN PALYA MAIN ROAD,
NEAR SBI, R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 032.

MS.GOWHAR UNNISA,
D/O SYED ABDUL RAHAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO.12-1-2H, T B CROSS,
T B EXTENSION, RAMANAGAR – 562 159.

MS.SHAZIA SULTANA,
W/O JAVEEDULLA KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
NO.39, DOOR NO.003,
HOSUR ROAD, SENAN TOWN,
BENGALURU – 560 046.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48030-DB
WA No. 1595 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010621022024



15.






16.





17.






18.






19.






20.






MR.SOHAN LAL JOSHI,
S/O LATE DALARAM JOSHI,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT NO.123,124, SAINIK VIHAR LAYOUT,
KENCHANALLI, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU – 560 064.

BABY MISHRA W/O RAJGURU,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.247/217, SAINIK VIHAR 40,
KENCHANALLI, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU – 560 064.

THYAGARAJULU,
S/O SRI.K.DORAISWAMY NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO.140, SAINIK VIHAR 40,
KENCHANALLI, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU – 560 064.

MR.VENKARARATNAM NAIDU,
S/O LATE MARAKONDA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT NO.137,138, SAINIK VIHAR 40,
KENCHANALLI, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU – 560 064.

P.GEETHA,
W/O NEERAJAKSHILU NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO.107, SAINIK VIHAR 40,
KENCHANALLI, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU – 560 064.

R.VANITHA,
W/O LATE R RAVI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.100,103, SAINIK VIHAR 40,
KENCHANALLI, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU – 560 064.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48030-DB
WA No. 1595 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010621022024


21.





22.






23.






24.
K SRIDAR S/O K CHENNIALA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
NO.108, 108A, SAINIK VIHAR 40,
KENCHANALLI, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU – 560 064.

LINDON JOHNSON,
S/O JOHN WILSON,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.143/144, SAINIK VIHAR 40,
KENCHANALLI, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU – 560 064.

PURSHOTHAM NAIDU,
S/O LATE PARIJATHAMA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO.106, SAINIK VIHAR 40,
KENCHANALLI, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU – 560 064.

R.NAGARAJ S/O LATE RAMU NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
NO.105A, SAINIK VIHAR 40,
KENCHANALLI, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU – 560 064.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.SARAVANA.S, ADVOCATE FOR C/R7-R9
(CP NO.17710/24, 17715/24 & 17708/24);
SRI.M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 TO R6)

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A. CALL FOR RECORDS, IN WP
No. 17208 OF 2024 AND B. ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2024 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WP No.
17208 OF 2024 AND C. PASS ANY OTHER ORDER AS THIS
HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48030-DB
WA No. 1595 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010621022024


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 appeal has been filed by the appellants,
impugning the judgment and order dated 26.09.2024
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.17208/2024.

1. Facts of the petitioners in W.P. No. 17208/2024:
2. The petitioners, Sri Azmath Ullah Khan,
Sri G. Venkataramana and Smt. Uma Venkat, approached
the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the
Tahsildar, Yelahanka, to implement the order dated
10.01.2023 and the consequential direction dated
20.01.2023 concerning the alleged unauthorised
occupation of lands in Survey Nos. 33 and 34 of
Kenchenahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru. Their
case was that they had acquired rights in the subject

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48030-DB
WA No. 1595 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010621022024


properties under registered sale deeds and that persons
claiming through the private respondents were interfering
with their properties by unauthorisedly occupying portions
of the land. They contended that, upon their complaint
regarding the encroachment and unauthorised use of the
land for non-agricultural purposes, the Deputy
Commissioner, by order dated 04.01.2022, had directed
the Tahsildar to take appropriate action. Pursuant thereto,
the Tahsildar conducted an enquiry and issued the order
dated 10.01.2023 for removal of the alleged
encroachments, followed by directions dated 20.01.2023
to the revenue officials to clear the occupants from the
identified survey numbers. The petitioners therefore
sought implementation of the said order on the ground
that failure to act upon it would prejudice their claimed
rights over the properties.

2. Contentions of the respondents
3. Respondent Nos. 7 to 10, who filed their
statement of objections, opposed the Writ Petition

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48030-DB
WA No. 1595 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010621022024


contending that the subject properties formed part of
Sainik Vihar Layout, developed after S.K. Mariyappa
acquired the lands under registered sale deeds dated
15.03.1995 and 24.03.1995 and formed sites which were
subsequently sold to several purchasers. They asserted
that the site owners had purchased their respective
properties for valuable consideration and had been in
possession of the sites, with residential constructions
existing in the layout. They pointed out that the first
petitioner had earlier instituted O.S. No. 10/2019 against
numerous site purchasers and subsequently withdrew the
suit on 18.01.2020 with liberty to institute a fresh suit,
following which O.S. Nos. 125/2020 and 126/2020 were
filed without impleading all the affected site owners. They
further contended that the order dated 10.01.2023 had
been issued without notice to the occupants and
purchasers, and that W.P. No. 2074/2023, filed by the
Sainik Vihar House Welfare Association challenging the
action, was dismissed on 23.06.2023 on the ground of lack

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48030-DB
WA No. 1595 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010621022024


of locus , with an undertaking that the affected persons
would be heard before eviction. According to them, the
revenue authorities could not direct removal of the
occupants without following due process, particularly when
the ownership and possession of the properties were
disputed and civil proceedings were pending. They
therefore, sought dismissal of the Writ Petition, contending
that implementation of the impugned directions would
adversely affect their purchased properties and
possession.

3. Order passed in W.P. No. 17208/2024
4. By order dated 26.09.2024, the learned Single
Judge considered W.P. No. 17208/2024 along with W.P.
Nos. 13659/2024, 18606/2024, 19011/2024 and
19012/2024, which challenged the revenue authorities’
action concerning the subject lands and sites. While
dismissing the other writ petitions, the learned Single
Judge observed that the rival claimants were required to
establish their respective rights before the competent civil

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48030-DB
WA No. 1595 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010621022024


Court, particularly, in the light of the judgment and decree
dated 31.07.2021 in O.S. No. 665/2007 and connected
suits. However, insofar as W.P. No. 17208/2024 was
concerned, the learned Single Judge noted that the
petitioners relied upon their sale deeds and that the
Tahsildar’s order dated 10.01.2023 recorded that portions
of the land had been encroached upon and agricultural
land had been put to non-agricultural use without
authority. The Court accepted the submission that the
Tahsildar had decided to remove the alleged
encroachments after providing a fair opportunity of
hearing to the persons concerned and held that non-
implementation of the order would jeopardise or infringe
the petitioners’ claimed legal rights. Accordingly, W.P. No.
17208/2024 was allowed and a writ of mandamus was
issued to the Tahsildar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru, directing
implementation of the order dated 10.01.2023.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48030-DB
WA No. 1595 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010621022024


4. Grounds in writ appeal
5. The appellants, Sri Sonappa and others, have
challenged the order dated 26.09.2024 in this appeal,
contending that the learned Single Judge directed
implementation of the Tahsildar’s order without properly
considering their registered sale deeds, their possession of
the sites and the rights of other purchasers residing in
Sainik Vihar Layout. They submit that the layout was
formed, after S.K. Mariyappa acquired the properties in
1995 and that the appellants purchased sites in Survey
Nos. 33 and 34 of Kenchenahalli Village for valuable
consideration, with residential constructions having been
put up in the layout over the years. According to them, the
petitioners in the writ petition ought to have pursued their
remedies before the civil Court by seeking appropriate
declaratory and possessory reliefs, particularly since O.S.
Nos. 125/2020 and 126/2020 were pending. They further
contend that the Tahsildar lacked jurisdiction to order
eviction under Section 192A of the Karnataka

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48030-DB
WA No. 1595 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010621022024


Land Revenue Act, 1964, ( ‘Act’ ) and that the power under
Section 96, read with Section 95 of the Act, required the
competent Deputy Commissioner to conduct the requisite
enquiry and take action in accordance with law. They also
rely on the fact that the subject properties had allegedly
been developed as a residential layout, with houses,
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ( ‘BBMP’ )
assessments, khathas and civic amenities, and contend
that the impugned order contains no finding establishing
that the lands continued to be agricultural lands attracting
the alleged violation. The appellants further assert that the
proceedings in W.P. No. 2074/2023 and the undertaking
recorded therein required the affected occupants to be
afforded an opportunity of hearing before any eviction. On
these grounds, they contend that the learned Single Judge
failed to consider the jurisdictional objections, the pending
civil disputes and the prejudice that implementation of the
order would cause to the site owners, and seek setting
aside of the order dated 26.09.2024.

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48030-DB
WA No. 1595 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010621022024


6. We have heard the learned counsel Sri.Nagaraj
S Jain, appearing for the appellants and Sri. D.R.
Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Saravana S.,
learned counsel for cabeator/respondents No.7 to 9 and
Sri. M.N. Sudev Hegde, learned AGA for respondents No.1
to 6 and perused the material on record.

7. The question that arises for our consideration
is;
“Whether the order dated 26.09.2024
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.
No. 17208/2024 warrants interference in
this writ appeal?”

5. Reasons and Conclusion
8. Upon perusal of the pleadings and the material
placed on record, it is noticed that respondent No. 16 in
the writ petition, who was similarly placed as the appellant
herein, had challenged the very same order of the learned
Single Judge by preferring Writ Appeal No. 1660/2024.
The order under challenge was a common order, and the
issues raised in the present appeal arise out of the same

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48030-DB
WA No. 1595 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010621022024


factual circumstances and concern the same order passed
by the learned Single Judge. The appellant herein, who
was respondent No. 2 in the said proceedings, has raised
grounds substantially similar to those urged by respondent
No. 16.

9. It is further noticed that a Division Bench of this
Court, in Writ Appeal No.1531/2024 and connected
matters has already considered the issues arising from the
common order of the learned Single Judge and disposed of
the connected appeals, by issuing appropriate directions.
“14. Having considered the rival
submissions, we have perused the affidavit
filed by Tahsildar as well as Joint
Commissioner, BBMP, we refrain ourselves
from acceding to the contention raised by
Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, to the effect that the
Tahsildar earlier filed affidavit contrary to the
affidavit filed on 09.04.2026 in these appeals.
The affidavit filed by Tahsildar was under the
contempt jurisdiction wherein the contempt
proceeding was initiated for non-compliance of
the order passed by this Court. The affidavit
filed contending that proceedings have been
initiated by issuing notice in compliance of the
order cannot be considered as assumption of
jurisdiction by the Revenue Authorities as the
lands were made subject to the jurisdiction of
BBMP under Gazette Notification way back in
2007. In that view of the matter, though the

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48030-DB
WA No. 1595 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010621022024


land even if it is stated to be remained as
agricultural land, in view of the submission to
the jurisdiction of BBMP, the Revenue
Authorities have no jurisdiction to entertain any
complaint or pass any orders under the
provisions of KLR Act.

15. However in terms of the averment
expressed in the affidavit filed by Joint
Commissioner, BBMP stating that they are
empowered under Section 243(3) and 244(1)
of Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, to
initiate action against unauthorized
constructions, including issuance of notices and
removal/demolition of such illegal structures
and further the undertaking in the affidavit at
Paragraph No.17 wherein the said officer has
clearly stated that GBA undertakes to initiate
and pursue appropriate action, in accordance
with statutory provisions, against any
unauthorized constructions existing on the
schedule lands/ sites, if Katha is issued by
BBMP/GBA, we are of the view that the
Revenue Authorities have lost their jurisdiction
to take any action either implementing earlier
order from 2014-2022 or by means of issuing
of notice and passing orders under the
provisions of the KLR Act. In these
circumstances, the Writ Appeals are disposed
of modifying the order passed by the Writ
Court, with observation that the BBMP may
take action as provided in the provisions stated
supra. As the action is contemplated by the
BBMP, it answer the grievance of the petitioner
in W.P.No.17208/2024. In that view of the
matter, the actions contemplated under the
provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
1964 by the revenue authorities there under
stands obliterated.

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48030-DB
WA No. 1595 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010621022024


16. Further, in view of the disputed
questions of fact raised by the parties and
considering that the suit fled by the petitioners
in W.P.No.17208/2024 are pending
adjudication, the issues relating to title and
possession are required to be determined by
the competent Civil Court on full-fledged trial.
In that view of the matter, the liberty reserved
by the Writ Court in favor of the petitioners,
whose petitions were dismissed is saved.

17. With the above observations, the Writ
Appeals are disposed of.”

10. The grounds now urged by the appellant herein
are thus substantially covered by the decision rendered in
the said Writ Appeals.

11. In these circumstances, the issues raised in the
present appeal do not require independent reconsideration
and the appeal is liable to be disposed of in terms of the
common order passed in Writ Appeal No. 1531/2024 and
connected matters.

12. In view of the common order passed by this
Court in Writ Appeal No. 1531/2024 and other connected

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48030-DB
WA No. 1595 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010621022024


matters, the present appeal is also disposed of in terms
of the said common order.


Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
JUDGE



BVK
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1