Karnataka HC Sends Bengaluru School’s Land-Record Dispute With Ranganathan Heirs Back For Review, Leaves Title To Civil Court

The petitioner challenged the Regional Joint Director’s order dated 8 May 2026 in Revision Petition No. 1/2024, concerning revenue records for land at Cambridge Road, Bengaluru.

The petitioner claimed ownership and possession and argued that the private respondents’ challenge to the survey and hadbast was delayed and that the revisional order contravened Section 56(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

The private respondents disputed the petitioner’s title and relied on observations made by the civil court while dismissing the petitioner’s applications for temporary injunction in O.S. No. 26699/2022.

The High Court noted that the impugned order did not clearly identify the order challenged in revision and that the parties’ competing title claims required consideration by the competent civil court.

The petitioner invoked Section 56(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and relied on M.R.R. Setty (Dead) by LRs. v. Government of Karnataka and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1743, in support of its challenge to the revisional order.

The Court did not decide the applicability of that provision or precedent.

It proceeded on the basis that the competing title claims were matters for determination by the competent civil court, while the revenue authority was required to reconsider the revision on the basis of the parties’ rights and the documents and revenue records placed before it.

The Court found the impugned order unclear because it did not identify the order challenged in revision, including in its operative portion.

It also considered the parties’ conflicting claims and the civil court’s prima facie observation of a cloud over the petitioner’s title in the interlocutory proceedings.

Since title was for the competent civil court to determine, the High Court did not resolve ownership or decide the petitioner’s statutory challenge on its merits.

It instead held that the revision required fresh consideration by the Regional Joint Director, taking account of the parties’ rights and the material documents and revenue records.

The order dated 8 May 2026 was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Regional Joint Director for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with all parties’ contentions kept open.

The parties were directed to appear before the Regional Joint Director on 15 December 2026 at 2:30 p.m., and the authority was directed to expedite the hearing.