[Cites 23, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Muniraja Reddy vs State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO. 322 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
C/W.
WRIT APPEAL NO.309 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO.349 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO.354 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO.362 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO.388 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO.789 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
IN WA NO.322 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
SRI MUNIRAJA REDDY
S/O THE LATE RAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAKKURU POST, BANGALORE-560 064.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY R.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M S BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
2
KANDAYA BHAVAN
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE TAHASILDAR
YELAHANKA TALUK,
YALAHANKA,
BANGALORE-560 064.
4. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DIVISION,
2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING,
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 001.
5. SRI N RAJAREDDY
S/O LATE NARAYANAREDDY,
MAJOR,
RESIDING AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
JAKKURU POST,
YALAHANKA
BANGALORE-560 064.
6. SRI Y ASHWATH
S/O YERRAPPA,
RESIDING AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAKKURU POST,
YELAHANKA,
BANGALORE-560 064.
7. SRI B KADHARE LAKKAPPA
S/O BYRAPPA,
MAJOR,
RESIDING AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAKKURU POST
YELAHANKA
BANGALORE-560 064.
8. SRI MUNIREDDY
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA,
MAJOR,
RESIDING AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAKKURU POST
3
YELAHANKA,
BANGALORE-560 064.
9. BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY
AND SEWERAGE BOARD
REPRESENTED BY
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (KAVERY)-4
1ST FLOOR SUVARNA BHAVANA,
18TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KIRAN V. RON, AAG A/W
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1-4;
SRI. VINOD PRASAD, ADV. FOR R5-7;
SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADV. FOR R9;
R8 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGES ORDER DATED 07.02.2023, IN DISMISSING THE
WRIT PETITION No.9529/2020, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
SAME AND ETC.
IN WA NO.309 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
SRI RADHAKRISHNA REDDY
S/o LATE CHIKKATHAYAPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU-560 064.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.R.KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE)
4
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN COMPANY
BENGALURU-560 009.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU-560064.
4. SRI. N. RAJA REDDY
S/o LATE NARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/At CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU-560064.
5. SRI. Y. ASHWATH
S/o YARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
6. SRI. B. KADHARE LAKKAPPA
S/o BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
7. SRI. MUNIREDDY
S/o MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
8. SRI. MUNIRAJA REDDY
S/o LATE RAMAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
5
9. SRI. ASHWATH REDDY
S/o MUNIANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
10 . SMT. MUNILAKSHAMMA
W/o MUNISWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
11 . SMT. ANJINAMMA
W/o LATE LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 11 ARE
R/at CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU-560 064.
C.K JAFFER SHARIEFF
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs
12 . SMT. NASREEN JAN
W/o LATE ABDUL KAREEM
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
13 . SRI. ABDUL WAHAB SHARIEF
S/o LATE ABDUL KAREEM
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
14 . SMT. KULSUM
D/o LATE ABDUL KAREEM
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
15 . MISS. UMMI SALMA
D/o LATE ABDUL KAREEM
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
16 . SMT. ZAREEN KANJI
W/o LATE C.J KHADER NAWAZ SHARIEF
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
6
17 . SRI. ABDUL RAHAMAN SHARIEFF
S/o LATE C.J KHADER NAWAZ SHARIEF
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
18 . SMT. JAMEELA NAWAZ
D/o LATE C.J KHADER NAWAZ SHARIEF
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.12 TO 18
ARE R/at No-46 HAINES ROAD,
FRAZER TOWN,
BENGALURU-560005.
FAROOQ AHMED
SINCE DIED BY HIS LRs
19. SMT. RASHEED FAROOQ
W/o LATE FAROOQ AHMED
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/at No-31, 3RD CROSS,
KRISHNA GARDEN, ANJANEYA BLOCK,
AQSA MASJID, J.C NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 036.
20 . SMT. SHABEEN FAROOQ
W/o LATE FAROOQ AHMED
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/at No-31, 3RD CROSS,
KRISHNA GARDEN, ANJANEYA BLOCK,
AQSA MASJID, J.C. NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 036.
21 . SRI. K.R SUDEER
S/o K.N. RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/at HANUMANAHALLI,
MALARVADI POST,
KANAKAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU-560 121.
22 . SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/o D. KALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
7
RESIDING AT No.389
KALAPPA LAYOUT
1ST CROSS, SAHAKAR NAGAR POST
AMRUTHAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 092.
23 . SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/o APPAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/at CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAKKUR POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560064.
24 . SRI. MUSTAQ AHMED
S/o BASHEER AHMED
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
MANAGING COMMITTEE MEMBER
AND OFFICER BEARER
MASJID-E-BILAL No-31, 3RD CROSS
KRISHNAMMA GARDEN
ANJANEYA BLOCK,
MUNIREDDYPALYAM
BENGALURU-560046.
25 . SRI. SYED TAJUDDIN
S/o LATE SYED KAREEM
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/at No-3/1, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
PALACE GUTTAHALLI
BENGALURU-560003.
26 . SRI. LOKESH
S/o LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
27 . SRI. K. MANJUNATH
S/o LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.26 AND 27 ARE
R/AT N. NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
8
KOTHANUR POST,
BENGALURU-560 077.
28 . SRI. SHAIK MAHAMOOD
S/o SHAIK ISMAIL
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/at No-20,
DHANAKOTI LANE CROSS,
THIMMAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560051.
29 . SRI. MAHABOOB PASHA
S/o LATE A RAHAMAN
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/at Sy. No-75/4,
CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAKKUR POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 064.
30 . SRI. V. KRISHNA REDDY
S/o V. GANGIREDDY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/at CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560064.
31 . SRI. G. VIJAYA KUMAR
S/o LATE H. GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
32 . SRI. G. VASANTHA KUMAR
S/o LATE H. GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.31 & 32
R/at No-264, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
1ST PHASE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
MANJUNATH NAGAR
BANGALORE-560010.
9
33 . BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY AND
SEWERAGE BOARD (BWSSB)
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G ROAD,
BENGALURU-01,
REP BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER
(RESPONDENT No-33 AMENDMENT
CARRIED OUT AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED
18.06.2025)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KIRAN V. RON, AAG A/W
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 TO 3;
SRI. S.H.KAZI, ADV. FOR R19 & 20;
V/O DATED 27.02.2024, NOTICE TO R10-R18 & R24-R32 IS
DESPENSED WITH;
SRI. VINOD PRASAD, ADV. FOR R4-6;
SRI. M.M.PRASHANTH, ADV. FOR R22;
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR PATIL, ADV. FOR R21;
SRI. K.N.KRISHNA, ADV. FOR R1 & R29;
R2 & 7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
V/O DATED 18.06.2025, NOTICE TO R9 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 07.02.2023 PASSED IN W.P. No.14796/2020 AND
FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION No.
14796/2020 (GM-RES) AND ETC.
IN WA NO.349 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O APPAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAKKURU POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE-560064.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PRASHANTH M.M., ADV.)
10
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE,
REP BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
BANGALORE.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
YELAHANKA TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
4. SRI.N. RAJA REDDY
S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
5. SRI.Y. ASHWATH
S/O YARRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
6. SRI B. KADHARE LAKKAPPA
S/O BYLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
7. SRI. MUNIREDDY
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
8. SRI MUNIRAJU REDDY
S/O RAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
9. SRI. ASHWATH REDDY
S/O MUNISWAMY REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
10 . SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE LINGAPPA,
11
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
11 . SMT. ANJANAMMA
W/O LATE LINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESPONDNETS NO.4 TO 11 ARE
R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAKKUR POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE-560 064.
12 . SRI.C.K. JAFFER SHARIF
S/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM
DEAD BY HIS LRS
12(A) SMT. NASREEN JAN,
W/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
12(B) SRI. ABDUL WAHAB SHARIEF
S/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
12(C) SMT. UMMI KULSAM
D/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
12(D) SMT. UMMI SALMA
D/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
12(E) SMT. ZAREENA KANJI
W/O LATE C J KHADER NAWAZ SHARIEFF,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
12(F) SRI ABDUL RAHAMAN SHARIEFF
S/O LATE C J KHADER NAWAZ SHARIEFF,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
12(G) SMT. JAMEELA NAWAZ
D/O LATE C J KHADER NAWAZ SHARIEFF,
12
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.12(A) TO 12(G)
ARE R/AT NO.46,
HAINES ROAD,
FRAZER TOWN,
BANGALORE-560 005.
13 . SRI RADHA KRISHNA REDDY
S/O CHIKKATHAYAPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING T CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE 560 064.
14. MR. FAROOQ AHMED
S/O LATE BASHEER AHMED,
DEAD BY HIS LRS,
14(A) SMT. RASHEED FAROOQ,
W/O LATE FAROOQ AHMED
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
14(B) SMT. SHABEENA FAROOQ
W/O LATE FAROOQ AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.14(A) TO (B) ARE
R/AT NO.31, 3RD CROSS,
KRISHNAMMA GARDEN ANJANEYA BLOCK,
AQSA MASJID, J.C. NAGARA,
BANGALORE-560 036.
15. SRI K. R. SUDEER
S/O K N RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT HANUMANAHALLI,
MARALAVADI POST,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 121.
13
16. SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O D KALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.389, KALLAPPA LAYOUT,
1ST CROSS,
SAHAKARANAGARA POST,
AMRUTHAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 092.
17. SRI MUSHTAQ AHMED
S/O BASHEER AHMED,
MANAGING COMMITTEE MEMBER
AND OFFICER BEARER,
MASJID-E-BILAL,
NO.31, 3RD CROSS,
KRISHNAMMA GARDEN,
ANJANEYA BLOCK,
MUNIREDDY PALYA,
BANGALORE-560 046.
18. SRI SYED TAJUDDIN
S/O LATE SYED KAREEM,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 3/1, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
PALACE GUTTAHALLI
BANGALORE-560 003.
19. SRI K LOKESH
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT N NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KOTHANURU POST,
BANGALORE-560 077.
20. SRI K MANJUNATH
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT N NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE
KOTHANURU POST
BANGALORE 560 077.
21. SRI SHAIK MAHAMOOD
S/O SHAIK ISMAIL
14
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.20, DHANKOTI LANE CROSS
THIMMAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE 560 051.
22. SRI A MOHABOOD PASHA
S/O LATE A RAHAMAN
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT SY NO.75/4
CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
JAKKURU POST
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560064.
23. SRI V. KRISHNA REDDY
S/O V GANGI REDDY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
JAKKUR POST
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560 064.
24. SRI G VIJAYAKUMAR
S/O LATE H. GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
25. SRI G VASANTHKUMAR
S/O LATE H GOVINDAPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.264
5TH MAIN ROAD
1ST PHASE
WEST OF CHORD ROAD
MANJUNATHA NAGARA
BANGALORE 560 010.
26. BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY AND
SEWERAGE BOARD (BWSSB)
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K G ROAD
BANGALORE 560 009.
REP. BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (K)
...RESPONDENTS
15
(BY SRI.KIRAN V. RON, AAG A/W
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 TO 3;
SRI. B.L.SANJEEV, ADV. FOR C/R 26;
SRI. S.H.KAZI, ADV. FOR R14 (A&B);
SRI. VINOD PRASAD, ADV. FOR R4 TO 6;
SRI. K.R.KRISHNAMURTHY, ADV. FOR R13
V/O DATED 6.6.2025, K.N.KRISHNA RAO, ADV. FOR R15 & 22;
R12(A) TO R12(G), R17 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
V/O DATED 27.02.2024, NOTICE TO R18 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE HIGH COURT
ACT AND RULES, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 07/02/2023, PASSED BY THE SINGLE BENCH OF THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BANGALORE, IN WP
NO.9196/2020 AND ETC.
IN WA NO.354 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O D.KALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.389
KALLAPPA LAYOUT, 1ST CROSS
SAHAKARNAGARA POST,
AMRUTHAHALLI
BANGALORE-560 092.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. NARAYANASWAMY P.M., ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU,
REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY
16
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
YELAHANKA TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
4. SRI N RAJA REDDY
S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
5. SRI Y ASHWATH
S/O YARRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
6. SRI B KADHARE LAKKAPPA
S/O BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
7. SRI MUNIREDDY
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
8. SRI MUNIRAJU REDDY
S/O RAMAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
9. SRI ASHWATH REDDY
S/O MUNISWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
10 . SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
11 . SMT. ANJANAMMA
S/O LATE LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 11 ARE
R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
17
JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE-560 064.
12 . SRI C K JAFFER SHARIF
S/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM
DEAD BY HIS LRS
12(A). SMT. NASREEN JAN
W/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
12(B) SRI ABDUL WAHAB SHARIEF
S/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
12(C) SMT. UMMI KULSAM
D/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
12(D) SMT. UMMI SALMA
D/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
12(E) SMT. ZAREENA KANJI
W/O LATE C J KHADER NAWAZ SHARIEFF,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
12(F) SRI ABDUL RAHAMAN SHARIEFF
S/O LATE C J KHADER NAWAZ SHARIEFF,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
12(G) SMT. JAMEELA NAWAZ
D/O LATE C J KHADER NAWAZ SHARIEFF,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.12(A) TO 12(G)
ARE R/AT NO.46, HAINES ROAD,
FRAZER TOWN,
BANGALORE-560 005.
13 . SRI RADHA KRISHNA REDDY
S/O CHIKKATHAYAPPA REDDY,
18
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE 560 064.
14. MR. FAROOQ AHMED
S/O LATE BASHEER AHMED,
DEAD BY HIS LRS,
14(A) SMT. RASHEED FAROOQ,
W/O LATE FAROOQ AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
14(B) SMT. SHABEENA FAROOQ
W/O LATE FAROOQ AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
BORH ARE R/AT NO.31,
3RD CROSS, KRISHNAMMA GARDEN
ANJANEYA BLOCK, AQSA MASJID,
J.C. NAGARA,
BANGALORE-560 036.
15. SRI K R SUDEER
S/O K N RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT HANUMANAHALLI,
MARALAVADI POST,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 121.
16. SRI KRISHNAPPA
S/O APPAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAKKURU POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE -560 064.
17. SRI MUSHTAQ AHMED
S/O BASHEER AHMED,
MANAGING COMMITTEE MEMBER AND
19
OFFICER BEARER, MASJID-E-BILAL,
NO.31, 3RD CROSS
KRISHNAMMA GARDEN,
ANJANEYA BLOCK,
MUNIREDDY PALYA,
BANGALORE-560 046.
18. SRI SYED TAJUDDIN
S/O LATE SYED KAREEM,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO.3/1, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
PALACE GUTTAHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 003.
19. SRI K LOKESH
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT N NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KOTHANURU POST,
BANGALORE-560 077.
20. SRI K MANJUNATH
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT N NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KOTHANURU POST,
BANGALORE-560 077.
21. SRI SHAIK MAHAMOOD
S/O SHAIK ISMAIL
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT NO.20,
DHANKOTI LANE CORSS
THIMMAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE 560 051.
22. SRI A MOHABOOB PASHA
S/O LATE A RAHAMAN
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RA/T SY. NO.75/4
CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
JAKKURU POST
YELAHANKA HOBLI
20
BENGALURU 560 064.
23. SRI V KRISHNA REDDY
S/O V GANGI REDDY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
RA/T CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
JAKKURU POST
YELHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE 560 064.
24. SRI G VIJAYAKUMAR
S/O LATE H GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
25. SRI G VASANTHKUMAR
S/O LATE H GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.264
5TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST PHASE
WEST OF CHORD ROAD
MANJUNATH NAGAR
BANGALORE 560 010.
26. BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY AND
SEWERAGE BAORD (BWSSB)
CAUVERY BHAVAN
K G ROAD
BANGALORE 560 009.
REP. BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER (K)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KIRAN V. RON, AAG A/W
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 TO 3;
SRI. B.L.SANJEEV, ADV. FOR C/R26;
SRI S.H.KAZI, ADV. FOR R14(A & B);
SRI. VINOD PRASAD, ADV. FOR R4 TO 6;
SRI. K.R.KRISHNAMURTHY, ADV. FOR R13;
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR PATIL, ADV. FOR R15 & 22;
R12(A) TO R12(G) & R17 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
V/O DATED 27.02.2024, NOTICE TO R18 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
21
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT AND RULES, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 7.2.2023, PASSED BY THE SINGLE
BENCH OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT
BENGALURU IN WRIT PETITION No.9203/2020 AND ETC.
IN WA NO.362 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.K. LOKESH
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
2. SRI K MANJUNATH
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.69,
NAGARESHWARA NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
K.R.PURAM HOBLI,
SRK POST, BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 077.
3. MUNI REDDY
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAKKUR POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU-560065
(BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED)
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
22
BENGALURU - 560001.
REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY,
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU - 560009.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
YELAHANKA TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560064.
4. SRI. N. RAJA REDDY
S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
5. SRI Y ASHWATH
S/O YARRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
6. SRI B KADHARE LAKKAPPA
S/O BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
7. SRI MUNIREDDY
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
8. SRI MUNIRAJU REDDY
S/O RAMAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
9. SRI ASWATH REDDY
S/O MUNISWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
10 . SMT. MUNILASKHMAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
11 . SMT. ANJANAMMA
W/O LATE LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
23
RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 11 ARE
R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU 560064.
SRI. C.K.JAFFER SHARIF
S/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM
DEAD BY HIS LR'S
12 . SMT. NASREEN JAN
W/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
13 . SRI.ABDUL WAHAB SHARIEF
S/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
14 . SMT.UMMI KULSAM
D/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
15 . SMT.UMMI SALMA
D/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
16 . SMT.ZAREENA KANJI
W/O LATE C.J.KHADER NAWAZ SHARIEFF
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
17 . SRI.ABDUL RAHAMAN SHARIEFF
S/O LATE C.J.KHADER NAWAZ SHARIEFF
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
18 . SMT. JAMEELA NAWAZ
S/O LATE C.J.KHADER NAWAZ SHARIEFF
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.12 TO 18
R/AT NO.46, HAINES ROAD,
FRAZER TOWN,
BENGALURU-560 005.
24
19 . SRI RADHA KRISHNA REDDY
S/O CHIKKATHAYAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU 560 064.
MR FAROOQ AHEMED
S/O LATE BASHEER AHMED
DEAD BY HIS LRS
20 . SMT. RASHEED FAROOQ
W/O LATE FAROOQ AHMED
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
21 . SMT. SHABEENA FAROOQ
W/O LATE FAROOQ AHMED
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO.20 & 21
ARE RESIDING AT NO. 31
3RD CROSS, KRISHNAMMA GARDEN
ANJANEYA BLOCK,
AQSA MASJID, J C NAGARA
BENGALURU 560 036.
22 . SRI K R SUDEER
S/O K N RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT HANUMANAHALLI
MARALAVADI POST,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
BENGALURU 560 121.
23 . SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O D KALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/A NO.389
KALLAPA LAYOUT, IST CROSS
SAHAKARNAGARA POST
AMRUTHAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 092.
25
24 . SRI KRISHNAPPA
S/O APPAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/A CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
JAKKUR POST
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU-560 064.
25 . SRI MUSHTAQ AHMED
S/O BASHEER AHMED
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
MANAGING COMMITTEE MEMBER
AND OFFICER BEARER,
MASJID-E-BILAL
NO.31, 3RD CROSS
KRISHNAMMA GARDEN
ANJANEYA BLOCK
MUNIREDDY PALYA
BENGALURU-560 046.
26 . SRI SYED TAJUDDIN
S/O LATE SYED KAREEM
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/A NO.3/1, 5TH MAIN ROAD
PALACE GUTTAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 003.
27 . SRI SHAIK MAHAMOOD
S/O SHAIK ISMAIL
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/A NO.20, DHANKOTI LANE CROSS
THIMMAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 051.
28 . SRI A MAHABOOB PASHA
S/O.LATE A RAHAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT SY NO.75/4,
CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAKKURU POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 064.
26
29 . SRI V. KRISHNA REDDY
S/O.V.GANGI REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAKKURU POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 064.
30 . SRI G VIJAYAKUMAR
S/O.LATE H.GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
31 . SRI G VASANTHAKUMAR
S/O.LATE H.GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO.30 & 31 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.264,
5TH MAIN ROAD,
1ST PHASE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
MANJUNATH NAGARA,
BENGALURU-560 010.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KEMPANNA, AAG A/W
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 TO 3;
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR PATIL, ADV. FOR R22 & R28;
V/O DATED 18.06.2025, NOTICE TO R7 TO R31 IS DISPENSED
WITH)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 07.02.2023, PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.9482/2020
(KLR-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION OR
PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER/S WHICH THIS HON'BLE
COURT DEEMS IT FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE.
27
IN WA NO.388 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
1 . MRS. NASREEN JAN
W/O LATE C J ABDUL KAREEM
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT SY. NO.106/2, KOGILU LAYOUT
KOGILU BELLAHALLI CROSS ROAD
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560064.
2 . MR. ABDUL WAHAB
S/O LATE C J ABDUL KAREEM
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT SY. NO.106/2, KOGILU LAYOUT
KOGILU BELLAHALLI CROSS ROAD
YELAHANKA
BENGALURU-560064.
3 . MRS. UMME KULSUM
W/O DR. SALEEM AHMED IQBAL
D/O LATE C J ABDUL KAREEM
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT SY. NO.106/2, KOGILU LAYOUT
KOGILU BELLAHALLI CROSS ROAD
YELAHANKA
BENGALURU-560064.
4 . DR. UMME SALMA
D/O LATE C J ABDUL KAREEM
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT SY.NO.106/2, KOGILU LAYOUT
KOGILU BELLAHALLI CROSS ROAD
YELAHANKA
BENGALURU-560 064.
5 . MRS. ZAREEN KANJI
W/O LATE C J KHADER NAWAJ SHARIEFF
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT NO.A3, NO.46 HAINES ROAD,
FRASER TOWN
BENGALURU-560 005.
28
6 . MR. ABDUL RAHAMAN SHARIEFF
S/O LATE C J KHADER NAWAJ SHARIEFF
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT NO.A3, NO.46 HAINES ROAD,
FRASER TOWN
BENGALURU-560 005.
7 . DR. JAMMELA NAWAZ
D/O C J KHADER NAWAJ SHARIEFF
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT NO.46 HAINES ROAD,
FRASER TOWN
BENGALURU-560005.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SHAMNAZ ABUBAKAR, ADV. FOR
SRI. PONNANNA M.B., ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
YELAHANKA
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU - 560064.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KEMPANNA, AAG A/W
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 TO 3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 07.02.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
29
WRIT PETITION No.9502 OF 2020 AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND
ETC.
IN WA NO.789 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI N RAJA REDDY
S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
2. SRI. Y. ASHWATH,
S/O YARRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
3. SRI B KADHARELAKKAPPA
S/O BYLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JAKKUR POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI ,
BENGALURU-560 064.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VINOD PRASAD, ADV.)
AND:
1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
KANDAYA BHAVAN
K G ROAD,
BENGALURU- 560 001.
2 . STATE REPRESENTED BY
THE TAHASILDAR
YELAHANKA TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
YELAHANKA - 560 064.
30
3 . SRI K R SUDHIR,
S/O K N RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/O HANUMANAHALLI,
MARALAVADI POST,
KANAKAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU - 560121.
4 . SRI A MAHABOOB PASHA,
S/O LATE A RAHAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT NO 75/4-P
CHOKKANAHALLI
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
5. THE BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY
AND SEWERAGE BOARD (BWSSB)
KAVERI BHAVAN,
K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.
REP. BY CHIEF ENGINEER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KIRAN V RON, AAG A/W
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. K.N.KRISHNA RAO, ADV. FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1964, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P No. 9179/2020, DATED
07.02.2023, FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS No. 3 AND 4,
ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASHING
THE ORDER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DATED 17.06.2020 IN
RRT (2) N (A) CR32, 32(a) 2001-2002 VIDE ANNEXURE-V, IN
THE BATCH OF WRIT PETITIONS, (IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO)
CONCERNED TO THE RESPONDENTS No. 3 AND 4.
31
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 23.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
'Fraus Omnia Vitiat, the maxim can be translated as
fraud unravels all. The issue that we are called upon to
consider in this batch of writ appeals is whether the maxim
applies to the facts of the instant case.
2. Writ Appeals No.322/2023, 309/2023, 349/2023,
388/2023, 362/2023, 354/2023 are preferred against the
common judgment dated 07.02.2023 passed by the learned
Single Judge in Writ Petitions No.9482/2020 connected with
Writ Petitions No.9179/2020, 9196/2020, 9203/2020,
9275/2020, 9502/2020, 9529/2020, 14796/2020,
10434/2021 (KLR-RES).
Writ Appeal No.789/2023 is filed by respondents No.3,
4 and 5 in Writ Petition No.9179/2020 being aggrieved by
the common judgment dated 07.02.2023 passed by the
learned Single Judge inasmuch as it allows Writ Petition
No.9179/2020 filed by Shri. K.R. Sudhir and Shri. A.
Mahaboob Pasha.
3. We have heard Shri. D.R Ravishankar, learned
senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Prashanth M.M, learned
advocate and Shri. Narayanaswamy P.M, learned advocate;
Shri. S.M. Chandrashekar, learned senior counsel as
instructed by Shri. Chandrashekar Reddy R.A, learned
advocate; Shri. Vinod Prasad, learned counsel; Shri. K.N
Krishna Rao, learned counsel; Shri. S.H. Kazi, learned
counsel; Shri. Chandrashekar Patil, learned counsel; Shri.
Shamnaz Abubakar, learned counsel for Shri. Ponnanna M.B
learned advocate and Shri. K. Lokesh, learned counsel along
with Shri. Vijaya Kumar K, learned counsel appearing for the
private parties.
Shri. B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel appearing for
BWSSB.
Shri. Kempanna, learned Additional Advocate General,
Shri. Kiran V. Ron, learned Additional Advocate General
along with Smt. Mamatha Shetty, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the State.
4. The learned Single Judge has succinctly stated
the facts of the instant case.
The basic facts are not in dispute. By virtue of a
Notification issued under Section 1(4) of the Mysore
(Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, the
entire K.G. Chokkanahalli Village of Yelahanka Hobli stood
vested in the State of Karnataka. The appellants herein
contended that they had derived title over the respective
properties which are the subject matter of these appeals
from five orders of grant dated 15.02.1965, 17.10.1966,
30.07.1975, 31.09.1978 and 23.06.1984 or from purchases
made from the grantees or their successors in interest under
these grants. They also rely on the Sale Deed executed on
19.01.1920 by one Kollegal Sheebanna in favour of six
persons, namely, Muninarasimha Reddy, Nadappa @
Nadukala, Narasimha Reddy, Anjani, Huchappa, Mudaiah
and Munishamy.
5. Relying on the orders of grant, rights in
succession and Sale Deeds allegedly executed by the
grantees, then successors in interest and further successive
sale deeds, the writ petitioners sought mutation of the
respective parcels of land in their favour. On 30.04.1996,
the Tahasildar directed the names of the grantees under the
alleged 1978 grant to be entered in column No.12(2). This
Order was challenged by Krishnappa and Mariyappa before
the Assistant Commissioner. By an order dated 08.08.1997,
their appeal was allowed and the mutation was set aside and
the matter was remanded to the Tahasildar. While so, on
17.08.2000, a direction was issued by the Special Officer to
the Hon'ble Chief Minister to the Deputy Commissioner to
conduct an enquiry regarding entries made in respect of
Survey No.75/4. The Deputy Commissioner called for a
report from the Tahasildar by communication dated
17.08.2000. The said report has been considered
extensively at paragraphs No.50 to 54 of the judgment by
the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the Deputy
Commissioner invoked his power under 136(3) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ('KLR Act' for short) and
started an enquiry to examine the validity of the entries in
the revenue records. A Public Interest Litigation had been
filed as W.P.No.16775/2002, which was dismissed,
observing that the dismissal would not preclude the
authorities from acting in accordance with law. The Deputy
Commissioner after holding an enquiry submitted a report
which clearly indicated that no person had been registered
as an occupant under the Mysore (Personal and
Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, in respect of the
property comprised in Sy.No.75/4 and that the claims of the
petitioners were unsupported except in case of 1984 grant.
The Special Deputy Commissioner by Order dated
26.04.2004, directed the names of all other persons to be
removed from the revenue entries and directed the
Tahasildar to evict the unauthorized occupants. The said
order and consequential orders were challenged in several
writ petitions. Some were dismissed while other writ
petitions were allowed, setting aside the order of the Deputy
Commissioner and remanding the matter for a fresh
consideration.
6. In the meanwhile, W.P.No.12768/2013 (KLR-RES-
PIL) was filed in public interest and this Court, by an Order
dated 24.06.2014, held that the Special Deputy
Commissioner was at liberty to refer the records to Forensic
Science Laboratory. Liberty was also reserved to the public
interest litigants to challenge the order of the Deputy
Commissioner in accordance with law. An order passed by
the Deputy Commissioner on 30.08.2016, which was again
challenged and the matter was remanded to the Deputy
Commissioner for a fresh consideration. Thereafter, the
Deputy Commissioner referred the matter for a Forensic
Examination and after obtaining a report dated 26.09.2019,
he passed the impugned order dated 17.06.2020, which was
challenged in the writ petitions.
7. It was the specific case of the State before the
learned Single Judge that out of the total land available in
the village, 291 acres and 7½ guntas was registered in the
name of Kadim Tenants, 16 acres and 33 guntas in favour
Minor Inamdars and 252 acres and 11½ guntas in favour of
Inamdars under Section 9 making the total extent of land
granted was 560 Acres and 12 guntas. It was specifically
contended that there was no application made in respect of
land bearing Sy.No.75/4 for regrant by any person and no
order was passed registering anybody as an occupant in
respect of the said survey number and the said land stood
vested in the State. The land measuring 16 acres in
Sy.No.75/4 was recorded in the preliminary register
maintained in Form-1 with an entry in column No.9 as
'Gramastharu (Villagers) and in respect of column No.10 as
belonging to the Villagers.
8. The learned Single Judge considered the findings
of the Deputy Commissioner in extenso and found that there
is no entry corresponding to the re-grant orders in the
revenue records or the relevant registers and that there
were no such grant or re-grant orders as claimed by the
petitioners. It was also found that the re-grant orders were
apparently made under the Mysore (Religious and
Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 and not under the
Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act,
1954. It was further found that the Register No.8
maintained under Section 11 of the Mysore (Personal and
Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, showing the
details of assessment payable to the Government by kadim,
permanent, quasi-permanent, minor inamdar etc, in every
Taluk of a District does not contain any details as to the
grants claimed by the Writ Petitioners. Further, the learned
Single Judge found at paragraphs No.91 and 92 as follows:-
"91. The Register, which is produced before this
Court, also indicates the claims that were made by
individuals and the survey numbers over which they had
made a claim is also specified. An abstract of the claims
made is also found at the end of the Register. This
abstract indicates the claims made were decided in the
following manner:
Sl. Under Extent of
Type of Tenants
No. Section land
1. Kadim Tenants 4 291 A - 07½ G
2. Permanent Tenants 5 Nil
3. Quasi-permanent
6 Nil
tenants
4. Minor Inamdars 7&8 16 A - 33 G
5. Inamdars 9 252 A - 11½ G
TOTAL 560 A - 12 G
92. According to this extract, an extent of 291
Acres 07½ Guntas has been registered in favour of the
Kadim Tenants while the remaining land has been
registered in favour of the Minor Inamdars and Inamdars
under Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Mysore (Personal and
Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act. Thus, the abstract of
the Register, accounts for all the lands in Chokkanahalli
village."
9. Further discrepancies with regard to the date, the
entries, the signatures, the handwritings etc, were also
found which had been specifically referred to by the learned
Single Judge. Relying on these materials, the learned Single
Judge found that the orders passed by the Deputy
Commissioner are liable to be upheld and no grounds were
made out to interfere with the exercise of the power by the
Deputy Commissioner only in W.P. No.9179/2020, it was
found that there was an order of the Land Tribunal dated
23.06.1984 registering Zaibunnissa Sheriff as occupant in
respect of 7 acres 4 guntas of land and that a proceeding
under Section 136 (3) KLR Act could not be invoked against
the present holders of the said land. The said Writ Petition
was allowed and all other Writ Petitions were dismissed.
10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants raises legal contentions with regard to the power
of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner to initiate action under Section 136(3) of the
KLR Act. It is contented that the orders of grant or re-grant
as the case may be were those made in the years 1965,
1966, 1975, 1978 and 1984 and that the power granted for
cancellation of the orders of grant cannot extend to a
cancellation after such a long delay. It is submitted that
there were registered sale deeds and Grant Certificates from
the year 1920 onwards and that there was no sustainable
ground on which the grants could have been challenged
under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act. Referring to the
provisions of the KLR Act, as well as the Inams Abolition Act,
it is contended that once the grant orders have attained
finality and have been acted upon by the grantees, their
successors in interest and subsequent purchasers, there can
be no exercise of the limited power under Section 136(3) of
the KLR Act. It is submitted that the original residents of
the property were in possession even before Annexure B
sale deed dated 18.01.1920. Thereafter, grants and re-
grants were made which have attained finality. Further sale
deeds have also been executed and the subsequent
purchasers are in possession of the property. It is therefore
contended that there is no power to the Deputy
Commissioner to cancel the grants in terms of the acts in
question.
11. Further, it is contended that the wrong
mentioning of the provisions under which the grants were
made can, under no circumstance, be a ground to hold that
the grant orders are fake. Further, in W.A.No.388/2023, it is
contended that the finding recorded that the date on which
the grant order was issued was a Sunday is factually
incorrect and that the conclusions reached on the basis of
such incorrect assumptions are liable to be set aside.
12. It is further contended that pursuant to the
directions issued by this Court, the Deputy Commissioner
had directed the Tahasildar, Yelahanka to refer the original
documents to the Karnataka Government Forensic
Laboratory, Bangalore. On 20.06.2019, certain documents
including the Grant Certificates and the Registers were sent
for a Forensic Report by the Tahasildar. On 06.09.2019, the
Forensic Laboratory sent a communication to the Tahasildar
that the original documents were not sent and the
information sought is not specific. Thereafter, the
documents were forwarded and report dated 26.09.2019
was forwarded by the Forensic Laboratory. It is submitted
that the Forensic Report was inconclusive and could not
have been the basis for any finding that the documents were
fake.
13. Shri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.349/2023 has
placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case
of State of H.P v. Jai Lal and Others reported in (1999)
7 SCC 280.
Relying on the judgment, it is contended that Expert
Opinion cannot be relied on by the Court without the
credentials of the Expert being proved and examined in the
Court.
14. The contention raised is that even in case there is
no time limit prescribed for the exercise of the power of
review, such power has to be exercised within a reasonable
time. When fraud is alleged, the exercise of power must be
within a reasonable time after discovery of the fraud.
15. It is contended that the minor discrepancies in
the dates mentioned cannot be a ground to hold that the
persons who are in possession for decades are not entitled
to have their names registered in the record of rights. The
finding with regard to entering of date as that 17.10.1966,
that is, the date of the second re-grant order is a Sunday, is
a factual mistake. It is further contended that the findings in
the Forensic Report are totally inconclusive and that there
were no proper records made available for forensic
examination.
16. Shri. K. Lokesh, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant in Writ Appeal No.362/2023 has placed reliance of
the following decisions:-
• Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District v. D.
Narasinga Rao reported in (2015) 3 SCC 695;
• Mohammed Kavi Mohammad Amin v.
Fatmabai Ibrahim reported in (1997) 6 SCC 71;
• Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie
Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy reported in
(2003) Supp 2 S.C.R. 698; and
• Yogarani v. State by the Inspector of Police
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2609.
17. The learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the respondents submits that the entire
factual aspects of the matter had been borne out from the
reports submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, who had
meticulously considered the entire records. It is contended
that the learned Single Judge had also looked into the entire
records which were produced before him and had come to
the conclusion that there is no factual error in the report
submitted by the Special Deputy Commissioner or the
Orders passed by him.
18. It is submitted that the records would show that
the applications allegedly made by the appellants to enter
their name in the RTC in the years 1996, 1997 or thereafter,
had not mentioned any re-grant order and that it was only
on the claim that they are in possession of the property and
cultivating the land that their name was sought to be
recorded in the RTC. It is submitted that even when their
names were entered in the RTC, it was entered only in
column 12(2) of the RTC on the basis that they were
cultivating the land for 25 years. It is contended that since
the grant orders relied on are of the years 1965 to 1984, it
is inconceivable as to why the persons who claim under
those grant orders did not mention those orders in the
applications to have their names recorded in the RTC many
years thereafter. It is submitted that therefore it is clear
that even in the years 1996-1997 when the request for
entering the names in the RTC was made there was no re-
grant order in existence.
19. It is contended that requests were made long
after the alleged grants seeking recording of the names in
the RTC. The Tahasildar informed the Deputy Commissioner
that there are no records for the re-grant. The Deputy
Commissioner issued an order to mutate the property in the
name of the appellants. Later, the said order was recalled. It
is contended that the Special Deputy Commissioner was
empowered to test the genuineness of the re-grant order
and in case there is no such re-grant at all there is
absolutely no error in the order of the Deputy Commissioner
directing the cancellation of the revenue entries wrongly
made on the basis of fake re-grant orders.
20. It is further contended that the land available for
grant in Survey No.75/4 of K.G. Chokkanahalli Village was
only 21 acres and 19 guntas, whereas, the 5 grants totalled
to about 50 acres. It is submitted that the trial Court had
also considered the issue and had recorded in the judgment,
which is impugned in RFA No.229/2022 that the Sale Deed
of the year 1920 has no connection with the suit schedule
property, since even the survey number is not mentioned in
the Sale Deed. It is submitted that the appellants in RFA
No.229/2022 is fully bound by the finding of the trial Court.
It is submitted that the appellants - Muniraja Reddy as well
as Radha Krishna Reddy who claims through Muniraja Reddy
are all bound by the findings of the trial Court. It is further
submitted that the purchasers by the 1920 sale deed are six
strangers who have no connection with each other.
21. With regard to W.A.No.789/2023, the learned
Single Judge held that there was an order of the Land
Tribunal in favour of the grantees and therefore the power
under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act was not available to the
Deputy Commissioner in the instant case. However, it is
submitted that Annexure-A produced along with the writ
petition would show that the re-grant was under the
provisions of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams
Abolition Act, 1955 and the contention of the applicant
Zaibunnisa Sheriff, is that she is an Archak in the temple.
Further, there are interpolations in the application for grant
and the said grant is also clearly fraudulent.
22. Shri Kiran V. Ron, learned Additional Advocate
General has relied on the following decisions:-
• S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by Lrs. v.
Jagannath (dead) by Lrs. and Others reported
in (1994) 1 SCC 1;
• Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and Others v.
Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education
Society and Others reported in (2013) 11 SCC
531;
• Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114;
• K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India
Limited and Others reported in (2008) 12 SCC
481;
• A.V. Papayya Sastry and Others v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 221;
• Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1501;
• A Kirshna Shenoy v. Ganga Devi and Others
passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No.8080/2019 dated 11.09.2023, and
• Umadevi Nambiar v. Thamarasseri Roman
Catholic Diocese reported in (2022) 7 SCC 90.
23. The appellants in W.A.No.789/2023, who are the
residents of the locality have filed the appeal against the
judgment of the learned Single Judge in as much as it
allowed W.P.No.9179/2020 finding that the power under
Section 136(3) of the KLR Act cannot be invoked by the
Deputy Commissioner against an order of the Land Tribunal.
24. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
in the said appeal submits that it was on clear complaints
raised with regard to fraudulent re-grants having been
created by the appellants in the connected writ appeals that
the inquiry had been conducted by the Deputy
Commissioner. It was clearly borne out in the enquiry that
there were no such re-grant as claimed by the writ
petitioners and this fact was verified by the learned Single
Judge at the writ petition stage by examining the records
which were made available. It is submitted that it is on
being condensed of the fraudulent and fabricated nature of
the grants that the learned Single Judge had dismissed the
writ petitions.
25. We have considered the contentions advanced
with reference to the pleadings and the materials on record.
Section 1(4) of the Mysore (Personal and
Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 reads as follows:-
"1. Short title, extent, application and
commencement.-
(1) xxxxx
(2) xxxxx
(3) xxxxx
(4) This section and Sections 2, 27, 38 and 40 shall
come into force at once and the rest of this Act shall
come into force [in all minor inams in unalienated
village, on such date as the Government may by
notification, appoint, and in any inam village, on such
date as the Government may, by notification, specify in
respect of such inam village]."
Section 2(5) of the Mysore (Personal and
Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 reads as follows:-
"(5). "Inam" includes an inam village and minor
inam;"
Section 2(7) of the Mysore (Personal and
Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 reads as follows:-
"(7). "Inam Village" means an alienated village
whether Sarvamanya, Jodi or Khayamgutta or a
portion of such village;"
Section 3 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous)
Inams Abolition Act, 1954 provided that when an notification
under sub-section(4) of Section 1 has been published in the
Karnataka Gazette, then notwithstanding anything contained
in any contract, grant or other instrument, the land shall
stand vested in the Government.
Section 3(1)(b) of the Mysore (Personal and
Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 provides that all
rights, title and interest vesting in the inamdar including
those in all communal lands, uncultivated lands, whether
assessed or not shall cease and be vested absolutely in the
State of Karnataka, free from all encumbrances.
Section 127 of the KLR Act provides for record of rights
and the manner in which such records are to be maintained.
Section 128 of the KLR Act provides that all
acquisitions are to be reported and recorded in the record of
rights.
Section 129 of the KLR Act provides for registration of
mutations and a register of disputed cases.
Section 136(3) of the KLR Act reads as follows:-
"136. Appeal and revision.-
(1) xxxxx
(2) xxxxx
(3) The Deputy Commissioner may, on his own
motion or on application of a party, call for and examine
any records made under Section 127 and Section 129
and pass such orders as he may deem fit:
Provided that no order shall be passed except after
hearing the party who would be adversely affected by
such order."
26. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
notice that the learned Single Judge has considered the
contentions advanced on all sides and has also taken note of
the files as well as the materials on record. The learned
Single Judge clearly finds that the sale deed of the year
1920 cannot be relied on to conclude that the title in the
properties in question had passed on the basis of the same,
since the land vested in the state thereafter and orders of
grant after the vesting alone would confer title. Further, the
contents of the Forensic Report as well as the Enquiry
Report of the Deputy Commissioner are clearly referred to
by the learned Single Judge, who comes to the conclusion
that for the clear reasons recorded by him, the only logical
conclusion would be that the re-grant orders are fraudulent
and fake.
27. It is pertinent to note here that the fourth re-
grant order which is relied on is one dated 31.09.1978. It is
a Wonder of Sorts since the Caesarian Calendar does not
have a 31st day in September of any year. This fact is also
noticed by the learned Single Judge.
28. We are of the opinion that the contentions with
regard to the powers under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act
and the presumption with regard to official acts under the
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam would all be applicable in
normal cases and not in a case where allegations of fraud
are raised and are substantiated by objective reports by the
Revenue Authorities.
29. We notice that the entire extent of land stood
vested in the State and it is only on the strength of re-grant
orders that the petitioners could have claimed any right over
any extent of land in the village in question. Further,
Sections 4 and 5 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous)
Inams Abolition Act, 1954 provided for the registration of
Kadim tenant and permanent tenant as occupants subject to
the fulfillment of the conditions as contained in the said
provisions.
30. As observed by the learned Single Judge, the
name of the grantees or their successors-in-interest were
not found in the revenue records from the date of their
alleged grant and that the name of some of the parties only
appeared in Column No.12(2) and not in Column No.9 and it
is not the case of the parties that their names had been
entered for several years in Column No.9. Thus, the learned
Single Judge has rightly held that the revenue entries were
not amenable for correction.
31. As regards the argument that the revenue
authorities had no jurisdiction to examine whether the order
was valid or whether it was genuine is concerned, the
learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the very
purpose of conferring power on the Deputy Commissioner
under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964
is to ensure that if there is an oversight over the revenue
entries and if it is found that there was no basis for the
entry at all and the claim made for an entry was based on a
fictitious order, it would be the obligation of the Deputy
Commissioner to ensure that a fraudulent act is not
corrected.
32. As held by the Apex Court in K.D. Sharma's case
(supra), the Court defined 'fraud' as an act of deliberate
deception with the design of securing something by taking
unfair advantage of another. In fraud, one gains at the loss
and cost of another. Even the most solemn proceedings
stand vitiated if they are actuated by fraud. Fraud is thus an
extrinsic collateral act which vitiates all judicial acts,
whether in rem or in personam.
33. As regards the argument that the exercise of the
revisional power having not been exercised within a
reasonable time, the impugned order could not be
sustained, it is to be stated here that as held in Vishnu
Vardhan's case (supra), from the multiple decisions of this
Court on 'fraud', what follows is that fraud and justice
cannot dwell together, the legislature never intends to guard
fraud, the question of limitation to exercise power does not
arise, if fraud is proved, and even finality of litigation cannot
be pressed into service to absurd limits when a fraud is
unravelled. Thus, the said argument has rightly been dealt
with by the learned Single Judge.
34. Thus, we are of the opinion that the learned
Single Judge has rightly observed that for a person to claim
a right over land statutorily stood vested with the
Government, an order passed under the statute is essential
and if it is found that no proceeding or order had been
passed in respect of the said land, the question of
entertaining a claim would not arise.
35. The specific case of the State Government is that
there were no orders of re-grant as claimed by the
petitioners in the Writ Petitions before the learned Single
Judge. The learned Single Judge having considered the
pleadings, the materials and the records produced, had
come to a definite conclusion that the re-grant orders were
concocted documents and that such re-grants had not taken
place as claimed by the petitioners. The reasons for coming
to this conclusion are also clearly stated in the judgment of
the learned Single Judge.
36. Having considered the findings in the judgment
qua the arguments placed before us, we are of the opinion
that this is a fit case where the 'theory of fraud vitiating all
proceedings' should be applied. The Apex Court considering
in an almost identical situation in A.V. Papayya Sastry
and Others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and
Others reported in (2007) 4 SCC 221, has clearly held as
under:-
"21. Now, it is well-settled principle of law that if
any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be
said to be a judgment or order in law. Before three
centuries, Chief Justice Edward Coke proclaimed:
"Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or
temporal."
22. It is thus settled proposition of law that a
judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on
the court, tribunal or authority is a nullity and non est in
the eye of the law. Such a judgment, decree or order--
by the first court or by the final court--has to be treated
as nullity by every court, superior or inferior. It can be
challenged in any court, at any time, in appeal, revision,
writ or even in collateral proceedings.
23. In the leading case of Lazarus Estates
Ltd. v. Beasley Lord Denning observed : (All ER p. 345
C)
"No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister,
can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud."
24. In Duchess of Kingstone, Smith's Leading
Cases, 13th Edn., p. 644, explaining the nature of fraud,
de Grey, C.J. stated that though a judgment would be
res judicata and not impeachable from within, it might be
impeachable from without. In other words, though it is
not permissible to show that the court was "mistaken", it
might be shown that it was "misled". There is an
essential distinction between mistake and trickery. The
clear implication of the distinction is that an action to set
aside a judgment cannot be brought on the ground that
it has been decided wrongly, namely, that on the merits,
the decision was one which should not have been
rendered, but it can be set aside, if the court was
imposed upon or tricked into giving the judgment.
25. It has been said : fraud and justice never
dwell together (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant); or
fraud and deceit ought to benefit none (fraus et dolus
nemini patrocinari debent).
26. Fraud may be defined as an act of deliberate
deception with the design of securing some unfair or
undeserved benefit by taking undue advantage of
another. In fraud one gains at the loss of another. Even
most solemn proceedings stand vitiated if they are
actuated by fraud. Fraud is thus an extrinsic collateral
act which vitiates all judicial acts, whether in rem or in
personam. The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot
be stretched to the extent of an absurdity that it can be
utilised as an engine of oppression by dishonest and
fraudulent litigants."
In Dalip Singh's case (supra), the Apex Court at
paragraph No.2, stated as under:-
"2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants
has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not
have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to
falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals.
In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed
of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved
new rules and it is now well established that a litigant,
who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who
touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands,
is not entitled to any relief, interim or final."
37. In the facts and circumstances of the instant
case, the learned Single Judge has taken painstaking efforts
to go into the facts of each of the cases and has come to a
clear and unequivocal conclusion that there were no grants
as claimed by the petitioners. We find no sustainable
grounds raised warranting interference in the judgment
under appeal.
38. In Writ Petition No.9179/2020, the learned Single
Judge considered the contentions and found that
Zaibunnissa Sheriff was registered as an occupant by the
Land Tribunal by its order dated 23.06.1984 and that the
genuinity of the grant therefore, could not have been
examined by the Special Deputy Commissioner. We notice
that the Writ Petition was filed specifically stating that the
petitioners derived right, title and interest from Zaibunnissa
Sheriff. It is contended that the land measuring 7 acres 4
guntas in Sy.No.75/4 was an Inam land and Muniswamy
Reddy was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
same. On 08.01.1981, Zaibunnissa Sheriff had purchased
the land from Muniswamy Reddy. Further, she filed an
application dated 30.03.1984 for re-grant of the land in her
name and by Annexure-C, Order of the Land Tribunal dated
23.06.1984, she was registered as an occupant of the land.
Further, Annexure-D was produced to show that an amount
of ₹1,638/- being the premium amount for the grant was
paid by Zaibunnissa Sheriff on 26.06.1984. Thereafter, she
immediately sold the land and successive sale deeds are
produced to show the flow of title. The writ petitioners claim
to be present owners of portions of the land.
39. The Special Deputy Commissioner specifically
found that the Zaibunnissa Sheriff had allegedly made
Annexure-A application under Mysore (Religious and
Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, claiming to be the
Archak of a Temple. However, the Special Deputy
Commissioner found that in the said case also in column
No.9 of the preliminary record there was a noting as
'Gomala'. Later, it was rounded off and shown as
'Gramastaru'. In the said case also, the Special Deputy
Commissioner specifically finds that there are no entries in
Form-8 Register and there are no records supporting the
grant in favour of Zaibunnissa Sheriff. However, there is no
contention raised, as in the other cases, that there is no
order as such of the Land Tribunal on 23.06.1984. The
impugned order also does not state that the order of the
Land Tribunal is forged or fake. Since, Zaibunnissa Sheriff
claimed only under the grant order passed by the Tribunal
on 23.06.1984 and no contentions have been raised that
there was no such order at all, the exercise under Section
136(3) of the KLR Act could not have been undertaken in
the said case. However, the learned Single Judge did not
express any opinion on the genuineness of the claim.
Therefore, the State is at liberty to challenge the order
dated 23.06.1984, in accordance with law, if such a course
is permissible in law. We make it clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on the maintainability of the
challenge, if any.
40. We are therefore of the opinion that Writ Appeals
No.322/2023, 309/2023, 349/2023, 388/2023, 362/2023
and 354/2023 are devoid of merits. The appeals fail and are
accordingly dismissed.
Writ Appeal No.789/2023 is disposed of with the
observations as contained in paragraph No.39.
The amount deposited by the BWSSB pursuant to the
Interim Orders dated 04.07.2025, 24.07.2025 and
09.09.2025 shall be refunded to the BWSSB.
All pending interlocutory applications shall stand
dismissed in all the appeals.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
cp*
