[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Nti Housing Co-Operative Society ... vs The Deputy Commissioner on 8 January, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.4937 OF 2024 (KLR - RES)
BETWEEN:
THE NTI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,
BEING A REGISTERED CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
(UNDER KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES ACT, 1959)
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.84, "SUN SMILE", 1ST FLOOR,
8TH CROSS, SERPENTINE ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
SRI PRATAPACHAND RATHOD
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.NAYANA TARA B.G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE
KANDAYA BHAVAN
2
K.G ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
KANDAYA BHAVAN
K.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. SPECIAL TAHASILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK
YELAHANKA
BENGALURU - 560 064.
4. SRI K.V.RAMANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
S/O LATE VEERAPPA,
RESIDING AT: KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE,
GOVT. SCHOOL ROAD,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) DISTRICT - 560 092.
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
4.A SRI SHIVANANJEGOWDA
S/O K.V.RAMANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT NO.758, GOVT. SCHOOL ROAD
OPP. GOVT. SCHOOL
KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 092.
IMPLEADED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 05.06.2025
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SESHU V., HCGP FOR R1 TO 3;
SMT S.SUSHEELA, SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SRI NAGESH VINAY S., ADVOCATE FOR R-4 (A))
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS OF RP NO. 201/2020 BEFORE THE R-1; QUASH THE
ORDER DTD 25.10.2023 IN RP NO. 201/2020 PASSED BY THE R-1
AT ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE ORDER DTD 03.06.2016 IN
RA(BNA)NO. 60/2016-17 PASSED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE-B;
DIRECT THE R-3 TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER
SOCIETY IN THE REVENUE RECORDS IN RESPECT OF SY NO. 165/2
MEASURING 29 GUNTAS IN KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA
HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner/NTI Housing Co-operative Society (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Society' for short) is at the doors of this Court
seeking the following prayers:
"(a) Call for records of RP No.201 of 2020 before the
respondent No.1;
(b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other order, writ or
direction of similar nature quashing the order dated
25-10-2023 in RP No.201 of 2020 passed by the
respondent No.1 at Annexure-A;
(c) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other order, writ or
direction of similar nature quashing the order dated
4
3.06.2016 in RA (BNA) No.60/2016-17 passed by the
respondent No.2 at Annexure-B;
(d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or
direction of similar nature directing the respondent
No.3 to enter the name of the petitioner Society in the
revenue records in respect of Survey No.165/2
measuring 29 guntas in Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka
Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk;
(e) Grant any other relief that this Hon'ble Court deems fit
in the facts and circumstances of the present case in
the interest of justice."
2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
2.1. The petitioner is a Co-operative Society. The State
Government issued a preliminary notification on 03-01-1985 in
respect of the subject property seeking to acquire the lands. A final
notification thereon was issued on 22-09-1986. Further notification
under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in
respect of the said property delivering possession of the property to
the hands of the Society on 05-11-1992. This is challenged in Writ
Petition No.2501 of 1996 before this Court. The said writ petition
comes to be dismissed upholding the acquisition proceedings.
5
2.2. The said order came to be challenged before the Division
Bench in Writ Appeal No.7940 of 1996, which also comes to be
dismissed by an order dated 09-12-1998 upholding the order of the
learned single Judge, thereby affirming the acquisition proceedings.
When things stood thus, the 4th respondent files Writ Petition
No.47009-47010 of 2001 calling in question katha made in favour
of the Society. The said writ petition comes to be withdrawn
reserving liberty to submit a representation. The 4th respondent
then, long after the acquisition and handing over of the property to
the hands of the Society, submits a representation to drop his lands
from acquisition.
2.3. The State Government, by an order dated 30-01-1999,
drops the said property from acquisition which was challenged by
the Society in Writ Petition No.6578 of 1999. In the course of the
proceedings, it is the submission in the petition, that the State
Government had indicated that possession of the property was
handed over to the Society by its order dated 20-04-1999. The writ
petition then comes to be withdrawn. The 4th respondent again
files another writ petition in Writ Petition No.32641 of 2002. The
6
learned single Judge allowed the writ petition in terms of the order
dated 06-07-2009, on a short point that the land owners were not
heard prior to passing of the order of handing over of the property
to the Society.
2.4. The allottees of sites formed in the said property and
other properties which are subject matter of order dated
30-01-1999 preferred Writ Petition No.29555-29570 of 2010.
During its pendency, another writ petition comes to be filed which
was tagged along with this, in Writ Petition No.38771 of 2014 all
calling in question Government order dated 30-01-1999 and to
review the order that was passed on 06-07-2009 in Writ Petition
No.32641 of 2002 among other prayers. The said writ petitions
come to be disposed by an order dated 25-07-2019 recalling the
order dated 6-07-2009 passed in Writ Petition No.32641 of 2002
and restoring the same to the file. The other prayers were also kept
open for adjudication. In terms of the said order, the Government
order dated 20-04-1999 passed by the State Government which
was challenged in the aforesaid Writ Petition Nos. 32641 of 2002
stood restored and the same is pending.
7
2.5. As observed hereinabove, on 20-04-1999, in terms of a
notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 it
is the averment that the property remained in possession and
enjoyment of the Society and its allottees. In terms of the order
dated 06-07-2009 passed in Writ Petition No.32641 of 2002, the 4th
respondent approaches the 3rd respondent to change the mutation
in respect of the property in dispute in favour of the 4th respondent,
on the score that the 4th respondent had inherited the said property
from his deceased wife Munithayamma. Respondent No.3 did not
effect the same. Therefore, the 4th respondent files an appeal under
Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act ('the Act' for
short). The appeal is allowed and the 2nd respondent direct the 3rd
respondent to change the khata in the name of the 4th respondent
on the basis of inheritance. Aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner prefers a revision petition in R.P.201/2020 and the
revision petition comes to be rejected. It is this that is called in
question in the subject petition.
3. Heard Smt. Narayana Tara B.G., learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner; Sri Seshu V., learned High Court Government
8
Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Smt. S.Susheela,
learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
Smt. Narayana Tara B.G., would vehemently contend that the
appeal filed under Section 136(2) of the Act clearly relies on the
judgment dated 06-07-2009 passed in Writ Petition No.32641 of
2002, which on the date the 2nd respondent passed the order, had
been recalled. There was no order in favour of the 4th respondent
to seek change in mutation. The same error is committed by the
Revisional Authority as well. She would therefore, contend that on
this short score, apart from merits that the petitioner has in the
case at hand, the writ petition is to be allowed and the orders have
to be set at naught, as those writ petitions which were restored are
still pending adjudication at the hands of this Court.
5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Smt. S. Susheela
appearing for the 4th respondent would vehemently contend that
possession of lands was taken or otherwise is the subject matter in
other petitions. But, as far as this respondent is concerned, he
9
would be entitled for certain amount of land and it is that land that
was the subject matter of proceedings under the Act. No fault can
be found with the order passed by the Authorities. She would seek
dismissal of the petition.
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader would also toe
the lines of the learned senior counsel for the 4th respondent in
contending that in terms of the final notification, 29 guntas of land
appears to have been left out and, therefore, the order was
unsustainable. On a repeated query to verify the documents, the
learned High Court Government Pleader would accept that no parcel
of land is left out and would leave the decision to the Court.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
8. The aforesaid narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue
lies in a narrow compass as to whether the orders impugned - one
10
passed by the Assistant Commissioner/2nd respondent under
Section 136(2) of the Act and the other by the 1st respondent
rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner deserve to be
sustained.
9. A little history, albeit at the periphery, is required to be
noticed. The genesis of the problem dates back to 1985 when a
preliminary notification comes to be issued in respect of the subject
property and final notification later on 22-09-1986. On 4-11-1992 a
Notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
comes to be issued and possession of the said property is handed
over to the Society on 5-11-1992. The said acquisition comes to be
challenged before this Court by filing several writ petitions and a
few of them are germane to be noticed. The Society had preferred a
writ petition with regard to possession in terms of the Notification
under Section 16(2) in which the 4th respondent was a party. The
writ petition comes to be disposed of recording the submission of
the Government that possession is handed over to the Society in
terms of its order dated 06-07-1999. The order reads as follows:
11
"Learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1st
respondent has filed a memo stating that the Government
has handed over possession of lands to the petitioner.
Petitioner submits that in view of the memo, he does
not press the writ petition.
Memo is taken on record.
Writ petition dismissed as not pressed."
The order was passed on the memo filed by the Government.
Later, writ petition is filed in Writ Petition No.32641 of 2002 by the
4th respondent. The said writ petition comes to be allowed by the
following order:
".... .... ....
6. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Annexure-
L communication is set aside only in so far as petitioner 1 to
3 are concerned. It is open to the parties to work out their
remedies before the appropriate authority in case the State
Government proceeds with the matter, it shall give an
opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and pass a
reasoned order."
The writ petition comes to be allowed on a short score that land
owners were not heard. Subsequently, writ petitions come to be
filed by other land owners in Writ Petition Nos. 29555-29570 of
2010 connected with Writ Petition No.38771 of 2014. The said writ
petitions come to be disposed of by the following order:
12
"..... .... ....
25. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the order dated **06.07.2019
passed in W.P.No.32641/2002 is required to be recalled and
is accordingly recalled. W.P.No.32641/2002 is restored to
file. List W.P.No.32641/2002 for hearing next week.
W.P.Nos.29555-70/2010 and W.P.No.38771/2014 are partly
allowed in so far as the challenge to the order dated
***06.07.2009 passed in W.P.No.32641/2002 is concerned.
The other prayers sought for in W.P.Nos.29555-70/2010 and
W.P.No.38771/2014 are kept open for adjudication in
W.P.No.32641/2002. The petitioners in W.P.No. 32641/2002
shall array the instant petitioners as party respondents in the
writ petition and the same shall be heard and disposed off in
accordance with law."
The order dated 06-07-2009 which had allowed the petition setting
aside the acquisition on the score that land owners were not heard
was recalled and it was restored to file. It is said that the said
petition is still pending.
PRESENT PROCEEDINGS:
10. The 4th respondent approaches the 3rd respondent/
Tahsildar seeking change in mutation entries on a twin strength -
one that he has inherited the property and the other the order
dated 06-07-2009 passed in Writ Petition No.32641 of 2002
allowing the writ petition. The Tahsildar refuses to change mutation
13
entry ostensibly on the score that right of the 4th respondent had
stood extinguished. This is challenged by the 4th respondent by
filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner under Section
136(2) of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner allows the appeal by
the following order:
"The above appeal preferred under section 136(2) of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Act') challenging the order in M.R.No.H5/2015-
2016, in respect of the property in survey No.165/2,
measuring 0-29 guntas out of 0-32 guntas, situated at
Kodigehalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North (Addl)
Taluk (hereinafter referred to as the 'said property/ies').
1. The delay in filing the above appeal is condoned and the
matter has taken up for final disposal.
2. The appellant submits that the wife of the appellant
namely Munithayamma was the owner and khatedar of
the property in survey No.165/2, measuring 0-29
guntas out of 0-32 guntas, situated at Kodigehalli
village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North (Addl) Taluk
and the said Munithayamma wife of K.V.Ramanjinappa
was died and the appellant being the husband of the
said K.V.Munithayamma has filed an application for
change of khata in his name on the basis of inheritance.
But the respondent authority has rejected to effect the
mutation. Hence, the abode appeal.
3. Heard the arguments of the appellant and posted the
above appeal for orders.
4. I have perused the entire pleadings and the documents
furnished by the appellant.
5. The RTC extracts produced by the appellant shows that
the said Munithayamma wife of K.V.Ramanjinappa is the
khatedar of the property In survey No. 165/2,
14
measuring 0-29 guntas out of 0-32 guntas, situated
at kodigehalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North
(Addl) Taluk and the Genealogical Tree produced by the
appellant shows that the appellant is the husband of the
deceased Smt.Munithayamma - the present khatedar
and the death certificate produced by the appellant
shows that the said Smt. Munithayamma was expired.
Therefore, the respondent ought to have transferred the
khata in the name of the appellant by way of
interitance.
6. In view of the above mentioned facts and the observations
made, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The appeal of the appellants is hereby allowed.
The Tahasildar, Bengaluru North (Addl) Taluk,
Yelahanka, Bengaluru is hereby directed to effect the
mutation and transfer the khata in the name of the appellant
by way of inheritance in respect of the property in survey
No.165/2, measuring 0-29 guntas, situated at Kodigehalli
village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North (Addl) Taluk, in
accordance with law.
Dictated to the stenographer, the typescript edited by me,
corrected and then pronounced in open court on 3rd day of June 2016.
Sd/-
(K.RANGANATH)
Assistant Commissioner
Bengaluru North Sub-Division
Bengaluru."
The Assistant Commissioner does not proceed to notice any order
passed by this Court in any of the writ petitions, but restricts his
order to 29 guntas in Sy.No.165/2 and directs khata to be changed
in the name of the 4th respondent. This is challenged by the
petitioner before the 1st respondent/Deputy Commissioner by filing
a revision petition. In the revision petition the Deputy
Commissioner passes the following order:
"1) ಅ ಾರರು ಾಜರುಪ ರುವ ಭೂ ಾ ೕನ ಾ ಯ ಾಥ ಕ ಅ ಸೂಚ$ೆ ಪ & ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
ಉ ೇಶ ೆ) ಭೂ ಾ ೕನ*ಾ+ರುತ- ೆ ಎಂದು ಸ1ಷ3ಪಡುತ- ೆ.
2) 56ೇಷ ಭೂ ಾ ೕ$ಾ ಾ7ಗಳ: ಅ ಸೂಚ$ೆ ;$ಾಂಕ:15-04-1991ರ <ೕ=ೆ
ಭೂ ಾ ೕನªÁzÀ ಸ ತನು> ಹ ಾ-ಂತ7 ರುವ ಬAೆB 5 16(2) ರ ಅನ ಯ ಅ ಸೂಚ$ೆಯನು>
ೊರ ರುವCದು ಕಂಡುಬರುತ- ೆ.
3) ಅ ಾರರು &D ರುವಂEೆ ಭೂ ಾ ೕನ*ಾದ ಸ ತ-ನು> ಭೂFಾGೕಕ7Aೆ Hಂ;ರು+ಸುವಂvÉ
ಸ ಾ ರವC I ೇ J ದನು> ಅ ಾರ ೊ ೈLಯು ಸ ಾ ರ ೆ) ಮನ5 ಸGN ದ ನಂತರ
ಸ ಾ ರªÀÅ vÁ£ÀÄ Iೕ ದ I ೇ ಶನವನು> HಂಪOೆ;ದು, ಇದನು> ಎದುರು ಾರರು ªÀiÁ£Àå
ಉಚQ$ಾRSಾಲಯದGN ಡಬೂNU 32641/2002 ರ <ೕ=ೆ ಪ J> ದು, 5VಾರWೆ ನOೆ ದ WÀ£À
$ಾRSಾಲಯವC ;$ಾಂಕ:06-07-2009 ರ ತನ> &ೕU ನGN ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡಂEೆ ಆ ೇJ ರುವCzÀÄ
ಕಂಡುಬರುತ- ೆ.
a. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Annexure-L
communication is set aside only in so far as petitioner
1 to 3 are concerned. It is open to the parties to work
out their remedies before the appropriate authority in
case the State Government proceeds with matter, it
shall give an opportunity of being heard to the
petitioners and pass a reasoned order. JAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
F jÃw $ಾRSಾಲಯವC ಆ ೇಶ Iೕ ದ ನಂತರ ಅ ಾರgÁUÀ°Ã ಎದುರು ಾರ=ಾಗGೕ
ಸ ಾ ರವನು> ಸಂಪZ , Sಾವ 7ೕ&ಯ ಆ ೇಶವನು> ತಂ;ರುEೆ-ೕ*ೆಂಬುದ£ÀÄß I ೇ ಶನದಂEೆ
Sಾರ ಪರ*ಾ+ಯೂ &ೕFಾ ನ Fಾ ಲN*ೆಂಬುದು ದೃಢಪಡುತ- ೆ, ಈ H$ೆ>]ೆಯGN ಪ J>ತ
ಭೂ ಾ ೕನ ಸ ತ-ನು> *ಾಪ^ ಪOೆ;ರುವ ಎದುರು ಾರರು ಈ _ಣದವ=ೆAೆ ಪ J>ತ ಸ-&-Aೆ J ೕ
ಹಕು) ಾರ=ಾ+ರುEಾ-=ೆಂಬುದು <ೕ]ೊ>ೕಟ ೆ) ದೃಢಪಡುತ- ೆ. ಮತು- ಉಪ5bಾAಾ ಾ7ಗಳ:
ಪ J>ತ ಆ ೇಶ ೊರ ರುವCದು ಸಮಂಜಸ*ಾ+ದು, ಸದ7 ಆ ೇಶದGN ಮಧR ಪ *ೇJಸುವ ಅಗತR
ಕಂಡುಬರುವC;ಲN.
ಅ ಾರರು $ಾRSಾಲಯದ &ೕU ನ ಅ ಯGN ಸ ಾ ರವನು> ಸಂಪZ ತನ> ಪರ
ಆ ೇಶ ಪOೆದ ನಂತರ ಕಂ ಾSಾ ಾ7ಗಳ ಮುಂ ೆ ಸದ7 ಆ ೇಶವನು> ಮುಂ ೊ d, ಸೂಕ-
&ದುಪ ಗಳನು> - ಕಂ ಾಯ ಾಖ]ೆಗಳGN Fಾಪ ೊಳfಲು ಅವ ಾಶ5ರುತ- ೆ. ಈ
H$ೆ>]ೆಯGN ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡಂEೆ ಆ ೇJ ೆ.
ಆ ೇಶ:-
ೇಶ
gೆಂಗಳhರು ಉತ-ರ(ಅಪರ
ಅಪರ)
ಅಪರ EಾಲೂNಕು,
ು ಯಲಹಂಕ ೋಬD,
ೋಬD ೋ AೆಹDf Aಾ ಮದ
ಸ.ನಂ
ನಂ.
ನಂ 165/2 ರ 0-29 ಗುಂiೆ ಬAೆB ಅ ಾರರು ಸGN ದ ಪCನj ಪ7Jೕಲ$ಾ ಅ ಯನು>
&ರಸ)7 ಆ ೇJ ೆ.ೆ
ಈ ಆ ೇಶವನು> ಉಕ-]ೇಖನ ೊಟು3, gೆರಳಚುQ Fಾ , ತಪC1ಗಳನು> &ದುಪ Fಾ
;$ಾಂಕ: 25.10.2023 ರಂದು ಬHರಂಗ $ಾRSಾಲಯದGN kೂೕlಸ]ಾmತು."
¸À»/-
(PÉ.J.zÀAiÀiÁ£ÀAzÀ)
f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ."
Here, the Deputy Commissioner relies entirely on an order dated
6-07-2009. The order is rendered on 25-10-2023. By that time, the
order on which the Deputy Commissioner places reliance upon
stood recalled in terms of an order dated 25-07-2019. Therefore,
there was no reason for the Deputy Commissioner to look into an
order that stood recalled as on the date he passed the order.
Surprisingly the Deputy Commissioner also records that in terms of
a notification issued under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition
Act, the property stood vested in the hands of the Society and
passes his order entirely on the order passed by this Court dated
06-07-2009 which was not in existence as on the date the Deputy
Commissioner passed his order.
11. Therefore, the order of the Deputy Commissioner suffers
from want of application of mind, adequate reasons and does not
refer to the factum of possession being handed over to the Society
by the State itself, which was recorded by the learned single Judge
referred to supra. On all these counts, the order of the revisional
authority is to be obliterated and the matter remitted back to his
hands for consideration afresh. Though the order passed by the
Assistant Commissioner is also under challenge, since the order
passed in the revision petition suffers from legal lacunae, I deem it
appropriate to remit the matter back to the hands of the 1st
respondent/ Deputy Commissioner, while directing stay of the order
passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 03-06-2016 till disposal
of the revision petition.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 25-10-2023 passed by the 1st
respondent/Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition
No.201 of 2020 stands quashed.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the Deputy
Commissioner for a decision afresh, bearing in mind the
observations made in the course of the order.
(iv) The order of the Assistant Commissioner which is
challenged before the Deputy Commissioner in Revision
Petition No.201 of 2020 shall remain stayed, till decision
of the Deputy Commissioner in the now remanded
proceedings.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ
