Karnataka HC Orders Revenue Entries For Land Buyers, Quashing Cancellation Of 1921-22 Grants For Lack Of Tank-Bed Proof And Decades Of Delay

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s orders cancelling the grants could be sustained when the authorities had not established that the subject lands were tank-bed lands.

The court held

The Court allowed both writ petitions and set aside the Deputy Commissioner’s orders in R.P. No. 145 of 2015 and R.P. No. 96 of 2016.

It also directed

It directed the jurisdictional Tahsildar to enter the names of the petitioners and any subsequent purchasers in the revenue records concerning the subject lands within two months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

01Facts

The petitioners challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s orders in R.P. No. 145 of 2015 and R.P. No. 96 of 2016 cancelling grants concerning the subject lands.

¶ 1, 16

They relied on registered sale deeds, mutation entries and the Khetwar Register, which recorded grants to their vendors under a 1921–22 Hangami Kandaya auction.

¶ 3, 7

They also relied on orders of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court dropping proceedings concerning the lands after finding that the authorities had not substantiated their claim that the lands were tank-bed lands.

¶ 4, 9

The State maintained that the lands were tank-bed lands and that the Special Court’s orders did not prevent suo motu proceedings.

¶ 6

The judgment describes the impugned order in R.P. No. 145 of 2015 as dated 22.02.2026, although the petition caption and prayer refer to 22.02.2022.

caption · ¶ 1, 16

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s orders cancelling the grants could be sustained when the authorities had not established that the subject lands were tank-bed lands.

¶ 6, 9–10, 15

ii.2. Whether the suo motu proceedings were initiated after an unreasonable lapse of time.

¶ 11–12, 15

iii.3. Whether the earlier conversion order and the Special Court’s findings were relevant to the legality of the Deputy Commissioner’s action.

¶ 8–10, 13–15

03Law Applied

Under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, suo motu proceedings are subject to the requirement that they be initiated within a reasonable period; proceedings to annul or nullify a grant cannot be commenced after an unreasonable delay, and the foundational facts warranting such action must be established.

¶ 11

The Court relied on Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District v. D. Narsing Rao, (2015) 3 SCC 695; Shyamo Devi v. State of U.P., AIR 2024 SC 2862; and Shivama (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, for those principles.

¶ 11

The judgment also refers to conversion under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and treats the prior conversion order as a relevant circumstance when examining later proceedings concerning the lands.

¶ 8

Provisions in the judgment · 2

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 Section 95Section 136

04Reasoning

The Court found that the Khetwar Register supported the petitioners’ account of grants dating to 1921–22, while the Special Court had recorded that the authorities produced no material to establish that the lands were tank-bed lands.

¶ 7, 9–10

It considered that finding relevant to the later proceedings concerning the same lands.

¶ 9–10

The Court also noted the prior conversion order relating to adjacent lands and the substantial lapse of time between the original grants and the suo motu proceedings.

¶ 8, 12–13

In the absence of material establishing the asserted tank-bed classification, and given the delay, the cancellation orders could not be sustained.

¶ 15