Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Smt Shanthamma on 12 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46100-DB
WA No. 1383 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1383 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPTD. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BEERASANDRA VILLAGE,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK- 562 110.
3. TAHSILDAR
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
Digitally signed DODDABALLAPURA- 561203.
by NIRMALA
DEVI ...APPELLANTS
Location: (BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA)
HIGH COURT
OF AND:
KARNATAKA
SMT SHANTHAMMA
W/O KEMPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT HONNAGHATTA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46100-DB
WA No. 1383 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS, SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE DATED 23/08/2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4656/2023
(KLR-RES) AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/s AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The State has filed the present appeal impugning an order
dated 23.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court
in Writ Petition No.4656/2023 (KLR-RES).
2. The respondent had filed the said petition impugning an
endorsement dated 30.01.2023 issued by appellant no.3 [the
Tahsildar]. In terms of the said endorsement, the writ petitioner's
request for issuance of a cultivation certificate in respect of land
measuring 19 guntas falling in Survey no.51/3A of Honnaghatta
Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk [subject land] was
rejected.
NC: 2025:KHC:46100-DB
HC-KAR
3. The writ petitioner had applied for grant of the said land,
which was favourably considered by the concerned committee and
a resolution dated 30.01.2004 was passed resolving to grant the
subject land in favour of the writ petitioner. Thereafter, on
28.09.2004 the Tahsildar issued a memorandum pursuant to the
resolution. The writ petitioner paid the occupancy price as required,
on 06.10.2004, and executed a personal bond. Thereafter, it
appears that no further steps were taken.
4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petitioner was
constrained to file a representation dated 21.10.2022 seeking
issuance of a saguvali chit in respect of the subject land. The said
request/representation was rejected in terms of the endorsement
dated 30.01.2023, which was challenged by the writ petitioner by
filing a writ petition being W.P.No.4656/2023.
5. The writ petitioner's request for issuance of a saguvali chit
was rejected on the ground that the subject land fell within a
distance of five kilometers from the limits of the City Municipal
Council and thus, in terms of Section 94A of the Karnataka Land
NC: 2025:KHC:46100-DB
HC-KAR
Revenue Act, 1964 [hereafter the KLR Act], the same could not be
granted.
6. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on
essentially two grounds. First, that some other persons, who were
similarly situated as the writ petitioner, were granted occupancy
certificates. Thus, in effect, the Court held that on the principle of
parity, the writ petitioner would also be entitled to a saguvali chit.
Second, that the resolution passed by the committee resolving to
grant land in favour of the writ petitioner was passed on
30.01.2004, which was prior to the Circular issued, which was
referred to in the impugned endorsement.
7. It is material to note that the endorsement had referred to a
circular for issuance of a cultivation certificate. The Tahsildar had
reasoned that in view of the said circular, the land falling within a
five kilometer radius of the limits of the Municipal Council could not
be granted.
8. The learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that since
the circular referred to had been issued after the resolution passed
by the concerned committee, the same could not take away the
NC: 2025:KHC:46100-DB
HC-KAR
rights, which had crystallized in favour of the writ petitioner earlier.
The Court held that the circular of the Commissioner of Survey of
Land Records dated 29.09.2015 could not be made applicable
retrospectively.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the
grounds, on which the writ petition was allowed, are unsustainable.
Insofar as the principle of parity is concerned, he submitted that
saguvali chits issued to other persons in respect of lands in the
vicinity of the subject land, were subsequently cancelled. He
submitted that since the saguvali chits issued to similarly placed
persons had been cancelled, the writ petitioner could not draw
benefit from the same.
10. Second, he submitted that the circular dated 29.09.2015 did
not demarcate the municipal limits for the first time. He also
referred to a notification dated 16.10.1995 issued under Section 9
of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter
Municipalities Act), inter alia, specifying the town limits of
Doddaballapur Town. He submitted that the subject land fell within
the radius of five kilometres of the said limits as specified in terms
of the said notification. Thus, the resolution of the committee to
NC: 2025:KHC:46100-DB
HC-KAR
grant sanction was subsequent to the said notification and thus,
contrary to law.
11. He also referred to Section 94A of the KLR ct. The Proviso to
sub Section (4) of said Section 94A of the KLR Act, expressly
provides that no lands be granted in the areas lying within the limits
of Cities and City Municipalities specified in the Tabular statement
set out below:
TABLE
Sl. No. Places Distances
1 Bangalore City under the Karnataka 18 Kms.
Municipal Corporations Act, 1976.
2 The Cities of Belgaum, Gulbarga, Hubli- 10 Kms.
Dharwad, Mangalore and Mysore
respectively under the provisions of
Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976.
3 All City Municipalities having more than fifty 5 Kms.
thousand population and constituted under
the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964
4 All Town Municipal Councils (TMCs) and 3 Kms.
Town Panchayats under the provisions of
the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964.
12. Entry 3 of the said Table specifies the distance of five
kilometres from All City Municipal Councils under the provisions of
the Municipalities Act. Thus, in terms of the proviso to sub Section
(4) of Section 94A, no lands falling within the radius of five
kilometres from the limits of the city municipal councils could be
NC: 2025:KHC:46100-DB
HC-KAR
granted. In this view, the resolution passed for grant of subject land
in favour of the writ petitioner is vulnerable.
13. This Court is informed that the Tahsildar has already taken
steps to challenge the same and the grant has been set aside.
14. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the
impugned judgment is set aside. The prayer made by the writ
petitioner in the writ petition, thus, stands rejected. We, however,
clarify that if there is any dispute whether the subject land falls
within the radius of five kilometers from the City Municipal Council
limits, the same would not stand concluded by the present order.
The parties would be at liberty to agitate the same in an
appropriate forum.
15. Pending IAs., if any, also stand disposed of.
SD/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
SD/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
