Karnataka HC Quashes Decades-Late Cancellation Of 1934 Kengeri Land Grants, Directs Revenue Entries For Buyers

The petitioners claimed through grants made in 1934 and subsequent registered sale deeds concerning lands in Sy. No. 122, Kengeri Village. Some lands had later been converted for non-agricultural use and developed.

In 2009, the Special Deputy Commissioner rejected claims concerning the genuineness of the grants. This Court set aside the relevant orders and remitted the matters for fresh consideration of the original records.

On remand, the Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 22 March 2016 in RRT (2) C.R. No. 62/2007-08. The petitioners challenged that order, contending that the proceedings had been initiated decades after the grants.

Under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the absence of a prescribed limitation period does not confer an unlimited power to revise or reopen revenue entries; suo motu jurisdiction must be exercised within a reasonable time.

The reasonable-time inquiry depends on the nature of the statute, the rights and liabilities involved, and the circumstances of the case. The Court relied on Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and the principles in Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District v. D. Narsing Rao, Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy and other Supreme Court authorities: even where fraud is alleged, delayed action may be impermissible, particularly where third-party rights have arisen and the State has not adequately explained the delay.

The original grants dated to 1934, while the proceedings were initiated many decades later and culminated in the 2016 order. The Court considered the delay unreasonable under the principles governing suo motu revisional powers.

It also noted that the lands had been converted for non-agricultural purposes and developed, strengthening the case against reopening settled rights after such a long period. Although the State disputed the genuineness of the grants, the Court concluded that the belated proceedings could not be sustained on the record before it.

It directed the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, to enter the petitioners’ names in the revenue records for their respective lands in accordance with law, forthwith.