01Facts
The petitioners challenged a letter dated 26 July 2017 from the Additional Deputy Commissioner to the Tahsildar, which treated their lands in Sy. No. 252 as uncultivable and initiated action to cancel grants made to the original grantees.
pp. 8–11The petitioners relied on registered sale deeds and, in W.P. No. 53693/2018, a registered Will transferring the land to the petitioner
pp. 8–11They also initially challenged related Karnataka Lokayukta proceedings, but did not press that relief; the Court noted that those proceedings had been closed
p. 8, 11The petitioners relied on official correspondence stating that the tank was in Sy. No. 199 of Magadi Village and that other lands referred to were in Sy. Nos. 344 of Nagarahalli Village and 72 of Magadi Village
pp. 11–1202Issues
i.1. Whether the letter dated 26 July 2017, which treated the petitioners’ lands in Sy. No. 252 as uncultivable and initiated action to cancel the original grants, could stand in light of the registered conveyances and the authorities’ correspondence identifying the tank elsewhere.
pp. 9–12ii.2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to protection of their lands and restoration of mutation entries pending a survey and decision by the revenue authorities.
pp. 12–1403Law Applied
The Court did not identify or apply a specific statutory provision, precedent, or substantive doctrine in its reasoning.
It proceeded under its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, considered the registered conveyances and official correspondence, and directed the Tahsildar to determine the matter through a spot inspection and survey with the jurisdictional Assistant Director of Land Records, followed by a decision in accordance with law
pp. 2–3, 12–1404Reasoning
The registered sale deeds and the Will supported the petitioners’ claim that the lands in dispute were in Sy. No. 252
pp. 8–11The official letters, however, placed the tank and other lands identified by the authorities in different survey numbers and villages
p. 11In those circumstances, the Court held that the authorities’ correspondence could not justify the impugned action against the petitioners’ lands
p. 12Because the dispute required factual verification, it directed a joint spot inspection and survey rather than finally determining the land’s status
pp. 12–1305Holding
The Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the letter dated 26 July 2017
p. 12It directed the Tahsildar, together with the jurisdictional ADLR and in the petitioners’ presence, to inspect and survey the lands on 7 December 2026 at 11:00 a.m. and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law
p. 13Until that exercise was completed, the authorities were directed not to interfere with the lands; the Tahsildar was also directed to restore the petitioners’ mutation entries based on the registered sale deeds within two months
pp. 13–14The challenge to the Lokayukta proceedings was not pressed, and the Court recorded that those proceedings had been closed.
p. 8, 11Original Court PDF
SRI VISHWANATH PvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
