Karnataka High Court
Gurappa vs The Revenue Inspector on 4 March, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9241
WP No. 29094 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 29094 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. GURAPPA,
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT MULLUR VILLAGE,
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE -560 035.
NANJAPPA,
(WAS GRANTEE AND HE WAS PARTY TO EARLIER
PROCEEDINGS)
S/O MUNISHAMI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS.
2. SAMPATH KUMAR N,
S/O LATE NANJAPPA,
Digitally
signed by AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
KIRAN
KUMAR R
Location: 3.
HIGH SUMITHRA N,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
D/O LATE NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
BOTH PETITIONERS ARE
R/AT MULLUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560 035.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9241
WP No. 29094 of 2024
AND:
1. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR,
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE -560 036
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
K.R. PURAM,
BANGALORE-560 036.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION,
BANGALORE-560 001
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
NEAR CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE-560 002
5. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE REGION,
BMTC BUS STOP, SHANTI NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 027
6. THE SPECIAL
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:9241
WP No. 29094 of 2024
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT NO.LND(E)CR.237/2006-07 DATED 06.03.2024
ISSUED BY R-4 i.e., THE ANNEXURE-T1 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are aggrieved by the refusal of the
issuance of a Saguvali Chit by the Deputy Commissioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner
No.1 was granted 1 acre of land and petitioner Nos.2 and
3, who are the legal representatives of Nanjappa, were
also the recipients of a grant of 1 acre.
3. It is contended that the order of grant was
made by an Official Memorandum dated 17th November
1979 and despite this Official Memorandum, the Saguvali
chit had not been issued. The impugned order indicates
that the land that was granted to the petitioners was
NC: 2025:KHC:9241
situated within 25 kilometers radius of the municipal limits
of the B.B.M.P. and therefore, the Saguvali Chit cannot be
issued.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners places
reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ
Petition No.39809 of 2012 (KLR-RES) DD 19.02.2013
which was in respect of the grant made in the very same
survey number to the extent of 2 acres in favour of the
petitioners. He points out that in those proceedings, this
Court negated the contention of the Government that the
grant was irregular and directed the authorities to act in
accordance with the grant. He also submits that pursuant
to this order, the authorities have in fact accepted the said
order and also issued Saguvali chit in favour of
Muniyellappa's daughter. He, therefore, contended that
even on the ground of parity, the petitioners would be
entitled for issuance of saguvali chit.
5. In my view, this argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioners merits acceptance. If four
NC: 2025:KHC:9241
persons were granted pieces of land in the very same
survey number under the Official Memorandum dated 17th
November 1979 vide Annexure-C and the grantee viz.,
Muniyellappa has been issued a saguvali chit, after the
contention of the State that the grant was irregular or
illegal was negatived by this Court, the State cannot
thereafter contend that it can still possess the power to
withhold the issue of the saguvali chit in respect of two
other recipients of the grant under the very same order.
The fact that the Government has accepted the order
passed by this Court and proceeded to issue saguvali chit
in favour of the legal representative of Muniyellappa would
also lead to the conclusion that the petitioners would also
be entitled to issuance of saguvali chit just as in the case
of legal representatives of Muniyellappa.
6. It is also pointed out that pursuant to the
issuance of saguvali chit, the revenue entries are also
made out in favour of the legal representative of
Muniyellappa.
NC: 2025:KHC:9241
7. In that view of the matter, in the light of the
above order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.39809
of 2012 (KLR-RES), it would be imperative for the
Government to act upon the said order and also issue
saguvali chit in favour of the petitioners.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. Two
months' time is granted to implement this order as a
consequence of the issuance of saguvali chit and the entry
shall also be entered.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
KNM
CT:SNN
