SRI. CHIKKA DODDAIAH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
R
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ST
DATED THIS THE 1 DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 24112 OF 2018 (KLR-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 39150 OF 2016 (KLR-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 39151 OF 2016 (KLR-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 24113 OF 2018 (KLR-RR/SUR)
IN WP No. 24112/2018
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY THE TAHSILDAR,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-560 009.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. I. THARANATHA POOJARY, AAG FOR
SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
JUANITA
THEJESWINI
Location:
High Court
Of Karnataka
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT,
BENGALURU – 560 009.
2.
SHRI. CHIKKADODDAIAH
S/O LATE DODDAIAH, MAJOR
PILLAHALLI VILLAGE,
DASANAPURA HOBLI – 562 123.
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LR’s
MR. C RAJANNA
S/O LATE CHIKKA DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
MR. C. LAKSHMANA
S/O LATE CHIKKA DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
MRS. LAKSHMAMMA
S/O LATE CHIKKA DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
MR. NAGARAJU
S/O LATE CHIKKA DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
MRS. NARAYANAMMA
S/O LATE CHIKKA DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT BADAKNAPALYA
PILLAHALLI DHAKALE, HUSKUR POST
DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2(A) TO (E).
2(a)
2(b)
2(c)
2(d)
2(e)
THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 22.09.2010 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT BEARING NO.RRT(2)
(N) CR/18/2010-11 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN WP NO. 39150/2016
BETWEEN:
SRINIVASMURTHY.R
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT HONNADANDRA VILLAGE
MATTHAHALLI POST
DASANPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVT. REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE – 560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT
BANGALORE – 560 002.
4. THE TAHASILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT
BANGALORE – 560 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. I. THARANATHA POOJARY, AAG FOR
SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP)
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 18.06.2016 BEARING NO.RRT(BN) CR
RD
60 / 16-17 PASSED BY 3 RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A
AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 39151/2016
BETWEEN:
1.
1(a)
SRI. CHIKKA DODDAIAH
S/O. LATE DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
R/AT. BADAKANAPALYA,
PILLAHALLI DHAKALE, HUSKUR POST,
DADANAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LR’s
MR. C RAJANNA
S/O LATE CHIKKA DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
MR. C. LAKSHMANA
S/O LATE CHIKKA DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
MRS. LAKSHMAMMA
S/O LATE CHIKKA DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
MR. NAGARAJU
S/O LATE CHIKKA DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
MRS. NARAYANAMMA
1(b)
1(c)
1(d)
1(e)
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
S/O LATE CHIKKA DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT BADAKNAPALYA
PILLAHALLI DHAKALE,
HUSKUR POST
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMETN,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE – 560 002.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT
BANGALORE – 560 002.
4. THE TAHASILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT
BANGALORE – 560 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. I. THARANATHA POOJARY, AAG FOR
SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 18.06.2016 BEARING NO.RRT(BN) CR
RD
60/16-17 PASSED BY 3 RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-A
AND ETC.
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN WP NO. 24113/2018
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE TAHSILDAR,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
BENGALURU – 9.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. I. THARANATHA POOJARY, AAG FOR
SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT,
BENGALURU – 560 009.
2. SHRI. SRINIVASAMURTHY
S/O LATE RAMAIAH, MAJOR
HONNASANDRA VILLAGE,
DASANAPURA HOBLI – 562 123.
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.09.2010 PASSED BY THE
SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT
BEARING NO.RRT(1)(N)CR/17/2010-11 WHICH IS
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
COMMON ORDER
Since there are two writ petitions filed by the State
calling in question the orders passed by the Special
Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, in respect of two sets
of lands and the owners of the two sets of lands have filed
writ petitions challenging the order dated 10.06.2016
bearing No.Bhu.Jam.Ne/Thaam(1)Viva/31/2015 at
Annexure ‘Q’ in W.P.No.39150/2016 and the order dated
10.06.2016 bearing No.Bhu.Jam.Ne/Thaam (1) Viva/30/
2015 at Annexure ‘P’ in W.P.No.39151/2016, passed by
the second respondent-Joint Director of Land Records,
Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru, these writ petitions
have been clubbed, heard together and are being disposed
of by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the private writ
petitioners in W.P.No.39150/2016 and W.P.No.39151/
2016, shall be referred to as ‘writ petitioners’.
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
3. It would be necessary to state the brief
background in which these writ petitions have been filed.
It is not disputed that the names of the landowners/ writ
petitioners are recorded in the revenue records and their
names were continued in the computerized RTC till the
impugned orders were passed by the Joint Director of Land
Records and subsequently, action was taken by the
Tahsildar to remove the names of the writ petitioners from
the computerized RTCs. The contention of the State in
both its writ petitions are that, although no grants were
made in favour of the writ petitioners viz., Sri
Srinivasmurthy and late Sri Chikka Doddaiah, who is now
represented by his legal representatives, several records
have been created, forged, fabricated and revenue records
have been created.
4. Therefore, the Tahsildar moved the Special Deputy
Commissioner to initiate suo motu proceedings under
Section 136 (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964,
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) to delete the
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
names of the petitioners from the revenue records and
discontinue their names from the computerized RTCs.
However, the Special Deputy Commissioner dropped the
proceedings after having found that there is no truth in the
contentions of the Tahsildar and the documents revealed
otherwise. In the meanwhile, the petitioners had
approached the Survey settlement authorities seeking
phodi and durasth of the lands and assignment of new
survey number. The Joint Director of Land Records
proceeded to pass the impugned orders accepting the
contention of the Tahsildar that there were no grants
made in favour of the petitioners or their predecessors and
directed the Tahsildar to remove the entries in the RTCs.
5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Udaya Holla appearing
for the writ petitioners submitted that the Joint Director of
Land Records had no jurisdiction to pass such an order,
having regard to the fact that the petitioners had
approached the Joint Director of Land Records for phodi
and durasth and for assignment of new survey numbers to
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
the properties belonging to the petitioners. The Joint
Director of Land Records (for short ‘JDLR’) had no
jurisdiction in the matter of the entries found in the RTCs.
The Joint Director of Land Records is only concerned with
the phodi proceedings, survey settlement, assignment of
new survey numbers etc. It is beyond the jurisdiction of
the JDLR to have issued such directions to the Tahsildar to
discontinue the names of the petitioners from the revenue
records.
6. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that this Court
has held in the case of Smt.Pyari Ma Vs. State of
Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.22426/2021 dated
12.01.2022 that if action is sought to be initiated either
suo motu or in exercise of power conferred under a
statute, they shall be done within a reasonable time. This
Court had referred to two judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad
Amin Vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim (1997) 6 SCC 71 and
Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District And Another Vs.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
D. Narsing Rao And Others (2015) 3 SCC 695 while
concluding that such action, even if permissible, should be
done within reasonable time. Learned Counsel submits
that the wisdom behind such directions are not far to
fetch. Third party rights would be created on the strength
of the revenue records and if the State and its authorities
are permitted to tamper with the mutation entries after 3 -
4 decades, it will have far reaching consequences on the
transactions and the ownership of the properties which are
in the hands of private persons.
7. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the
judgment of this Court has been upheld by the Division
Bench in the case of the The State of Karnataka and
others Vs. Smt. Pyari Ma and Others in
W.A.No.284/2023 dated 24.02.2026.
8. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General
(AAG) contended that the facts and issues in both the
cases are different. Although it is true that the name of
Sri.Chikka Doddaiah (W.P.No.24112/2018) is found in the
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
original Grant Register, nevertheless, it is submitted that it
is clear that some part of the original Grant Register has
been tampered with and interpolations have taken place
and insertions are found in the original record itself.
However, no such grant was in fact made in favour of Sri.
Chikka Doddaiah and taking advantage of the space
available in a particular page in the darkasth register, the
entries have been made. Although there were no original
orders passed by the competent authority granting the
lands in favour of Sri.Chikka Doddaiah, illegal entries have
been made in the Register and the writings in the
particular page and the ink also differs from the other
entries. However, it is not disputed that the mutation
entries have been carried out from the year 1978-79 in
M.R.No.11/1965-66.
9. In respect of the other matter pertaining to
Sri.Srinivasmurthy, it is submitted that no such entry is
found in the Grant Register. It is pointed that the
Darkasth Order bearing No.LND.SR.71/1984-85 does not
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
pertain to Sri.Srinivasmurthy, it pertains to one
Sri.Nanjaiah and 11 others and on the other hand, the
entry as found in LND.SR.53/1983-84 is not found in the
Grant Register.
10. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted
that even in the mutation entries what is recorded is the
grant in LND SR.No.71/1984-85 dated 04.10.1984 and
that order is not pertaining to Sri.Srinivasmurthy. The
subsequent mutation entries are bogus, fabricated and
created at the instance of the writ petitioner with active
connivance of the staff of the Taluk Office. Learned AAG
would therefore submit that the matter is being
investigated into by the Lokayuta Police and the original
records have been referred to the experts opinion and the
Forensic Science Laboratory report has been received in
the office of the Lokayuktha.
11. Learned AAG would therefore submit that the
public property should not be misused and the writ
petitioners cannot find fault with the action taken by the
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
respondent- Tahsildar in deleting the names of the writ
petitioners from the revenue records. However, learned
Senior Counsel Sri.Udaya Holla, has disputed the
submissions made by the learned AAG. It is pointed out
from the original Grant Register that in several pages such
difference in handwriting is found. This would mean that
the entries have been made by different officials on
different dates. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the
entries are bogus or interpolations.
12. This Court has come across several such
instances where the names of the private parties entered
in the revenue records and maintained as such for several
decades are sought to be deleted or discontinued without
following due process of law. Third party rights would
have been created and after lapse of several decades, at
the instance of the Tahsildar, proceedings are initiated
before the Deputy Commissioners or Special Deputy
Commissioners, invoking suo motu powers under Section
136 (3) of the Act. In many such cases, this Court has
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
also found that even before the Tahsildar could approach
the Deputy Commissioner or Special Deputy
Commissioner, the names of the parties are deleted from
the revenue records without following due process of law.
However, in the present case, it is found that such an
action is taken by the Tahsildar after orders are passed by
the Joint Director of Land Records.
13. The next question that would arise is whether the
JDLR could pass such an order directing the Tahsildar to
discontinue the names of the parties from the revenue
records. As rightly submitted by the learned Senior
Counsel, the provisions contained in Sections 127 to 129
pertaining to the revenue entries are found in Chapter XI
of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act with a heading ‘Record
of Rights’. The hierarchy of Officers under the said
Chapter is the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner and
the Deputy Commissioner concerned. There is no scope
for the survey settlement authorities in Chapter XI which
pertains to the Record of Rights. On the other hand, in
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
Chapter V of the Act, which deals with appeal and revision,
the Survey Settlement Authorities viz., the Survey Officer,
Assistant Director of Land Records, Deputy Director of
Land Records, Joint Director of Land Records, Director of
Survey Settlement etc. are found. There is a clear
demarcation of the powers exercisable under Chapter XI
and Chapter V. Therefore, on the face of it, the impugned
orders passed by the JDLR directing the Tahsildar to
remove the entries in the revenue records cannot be
sustained. Moreover, no opportunity of hearing is given to
the aggrieved persons before such an order could be
passed by the JDLR.
14. During the course of these proceedings, this
Court was constrained to call for the original records and
with great difficulty the records were procured from the
office of the Lokayuktha after issuing certain orders.
15. Learned Counsel Sri.Venkatesh S. Arbatti, who is
appearing on behalf of Lokayukta has today filed a memo
along with the original records which were in the custody
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
of the Lokayukta Police. The original records are in a
sealed cover. Therefore, the learned Counsel has
requested that after perusing the original records this
Court may re-seal the original documents and hand it over
to the learned Counsel.
16. This Court has perused the original documents
and Record of Rights. This Court found that the document
at Annexure-G2 in W.P.No.39150/2026 which is the RTC of
the years 1988-89 to 1992-93 are found in the original
Register in page number 194.
17. In the original Register of RTCs of the years
1978-79 to 1982-83, at page number 185 is the revenue
entries as found at Annexure-G reflecting the name of
Sri.Chikkadoddaiah S/o Doddaiah in Survey No.52.
Similarly, in the Register of RTCs of the year 1983-84 to
1987-88 at page number 144 is the document as found at
Annexure-G1.
18. This Court has also perused the original Saguvali
Chit Issue Register, which is handed over by the learned
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
AAG. It is not disputed that there is an entry reflecting the
grant of Saguvali Chit in favour of Sri.Chikka Doddaiah in
respect of Survey No.52 measuring 2.00 Acres under
Order bearing No.LND.GMF.78/1960-61. However, it is
sought to be contented that the ink and the writing in
which the entries are made differs from the other entries
in the same page.
19. Similarly, the original Darakasth/Grant Register
is also placed before this Court by the learned AAG and it
is not disputed that at page number 132/133 is the entry
found, where, in column number 1, entry 9/1956-57 is the
name of Sri.Chikkadoddaiah S/o Doddaiah and other 3
persons. In column number 5 is the name of the Village,
Pillahalli. In column number 6 is Survey No.52 and in
column number 9, is the name of Sri.Chikkadoddaiah
(2.00 Acres); Sri.Chikkadyavanna (1.00 Acre);
Sri.Bettadarayappa (1.00 Acre) and Sri.Ramadas (2.00
Acres).
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
20. The next page is the information regarding how
the reports were received and the records are built up,
etc. The information regarding the payments received
towards the Kimmath is also reflected in the next page. In
the last column, i.e., column number 19, the information
pertaining to the dates on which the Saguvali Chits were
issued in favour of the grantees. However, here too, the
same contention is raised that the entry in respect of
Sri.Chikkadoddaiah and others, is found in a different ink
and different handwriting.
21. Insofar as, Sri.Srinivasamuthy, in
W.P.No.39151/2016, is concerned, the original file
containing the Official Memorandum dated 06.11.1984 as
found at Annexure-C is available. The original Grant
Certificate as found at Annexure-D is also available. In
the original Mutation Register at page No.29 in the
bottom, the entry as found at Annexure-E bearing
No.5/1984-85 is visible. The original Register of RTCs for
the year 1983-1984 to 1987-1988 at page No.188, the
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
RTCs as found at Annexure-G is available. Similarly, the
original RTC register of the year 1988-89 to 1992- 1993,
the document as found at Annexure-G1 is available. The
original RTC register of year 1993-1994 to 1996-1997, at
page No.189 is the document at Annexure-G2, the original
is available.
22. The learned AAG however submits that it
appears that all these records have been tampered with
the active collusion of the staff of the Taluk Office, the
fabrication of documents have happened and appropriate
enquiry has been initiated against all who are responsible
for the same. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Udaya Holla,
has however, disputed the contentions.
23. Having perused the original records, this Court is
satisfied that the mutation entries have been carried out in
the case of Sri Chikka Doddaiah from the year 1965-66
and in the case of Sri Srinivasmurthy from the year 1984-
85. Having regard to the law laid down by this Court in
the case of Smt.Pyari Ma (supra), this Court is of the
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
considered opinion that no such proceedings could have
been initiated before the Special Deputy Commissioner
after lapse of more than 3-4 decades. It is also noticeable
that the Tahsildars have been initiating proceedings before
the Deputy Commissioners/Special Deputy Commissioners
without there being any Government orders passed by the
Department of Revenue. This Court has held in umpteen
number of cases that it is the State alone who is the
custodian of the public property. The revenue authorities
are only custodians of the revenue records and they
cannot initiate proceedings without there being a motion
from the Department of Revenue. In spite of several such
observations, no directions are forthcoming from the
Revenue Department to the Tahsildars. This Court has
been flooded with such cases complaining of the high-
handedness of the revenue authorities. Revenue entries
which have been maintained for several decades are
sought to be deleted without prior notice or initiation of
proceedings before the competent authority. All such
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
actions are to be deprecated and the Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department is required to take note of the
observations of this Court and initiate action or issue a
Circular providing guidelines to the Tahsildars while
initiating proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act.
24. This Court is not concerned with the enquiry
initiated by the Lokayuktha Police. Therefore, this Court
precludes from making any observations on the original
records perused by this Court. However, it would be
beneficial to reiterate the decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad
Amin (supra) and Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District
(supra) while concluding that action, even if permissible to
be initiated, should be done within reasonable time. This
principle applies even to cases where fraud is alleged.
Paragraph No.25 and 31 of the decision in Joint Collector
reads as follows:
“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
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
power, revisional or 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.
…………………
………………..
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.”
(Emphasis supplied)
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
25. Further, having regard to the grievances aired
by petitioners in respect to the orders passed by the JDLR,
this Court is of the considered opinion that such directions
or orders could not have been passed by the JDLR.
Discontinuation of the names of the petitioners from the
revenue records can be done only in accordance with law
after following the due process of law. Unless and until the
appellate authority or the revisional authority passes any
order in accordance with law as provided in Chapter XI,
the names of the petitioners cannot be removed from the
revenue records. On the other hand, the Special Deputy
Commissioner has dropped the proceedings initiated under
Section 136(3) of the Act, while recording a finding that
the original records reflect the grant orders and mutation
entries.
26. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
ORDER
i) The writ petitions in W.P.No.39150/2016 and
W.P.No.39151/2016 are allowed while
setting aside the impugned orders dated
10.06.2016 bearing No. Bhu. Jam.
Ne/Thaam(1) Viva/31/2015-16 at Annexure
‘Q’ in W.P.No.39150/2016 and the order
dated 10.06.2016 bearing No.Bhu.Jam.
Ne/Thaam (1) Viva/30/ 2015-16 at Annexure
‘P’ in W.P.No.39151/2016 passed by the
second respondent-Joint Director of Land
Records, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru.
ii) The impugned communication in
W.P.No.39150/2016 made by the
respondent-Assistant Commissioner,
Bengaluru North Sub-Division bearing
No.RRT(BN)CR/60/16-17 dated 18.06.2016
and the communication of the respondent-
Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk bearing
No.RRT(D)CR:213/2016-17 dated
18.06.2016 at Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’
respectively are quashed and set aside.
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
iii) The impugned communication in
W.P.No.39151/2016 made by the
respondent-Assistant Commissioner,
Bengaluru North Sub-Division bearing
No.RRT(BN)CR/61/16-17 dated 18.06.2016
and the communication of the respondent-
Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk bearing
No. RRT (D) CR: 209/2016-17 dated
18.06.2016 at Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’
respectively are quashed and set aside.
iv) The respondent-Tahsildar and the Assistant
Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-
Division are hereby directed to restore the
names of the khatedars as it was prior to
the passing of the impugned orders. The
entire exercise shall be completed as
expeditiously as possible and at any rate
within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petitions filed by the State and its
v)
authorities in W.P.Nos.24112/2018 and
24113/2018 are hereby dismissed .
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17876
WP No. 24112 of 2018
C/W WP No. 39150 of 2016
WP No. 39151 of 2016
AND WP No. 24113 of 2018
HC-KAR
Ordered accordingly.
27. The original records furnished by learned Counsel
Sri Venkatesh.S.Arbatti, shall be returned to the learned
Counsel after the office would cover the original records
and affix the seal of the High Court.
Accordingly, pending I.As., if any stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE
DL/KLY/JT
CT:KA