[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Smt. Rathnamma on 11 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14537-DB
WA No. 517 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 517 OF 2026 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE,
K.G. ROAD,
Digitally BENGALURU - 560 009.
signed by
REKHA R
Location: 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
High Court BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION,
of BENGALURU - 560 009.
Karnataka
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
K.R.PURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 036
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH., AGA)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14537-DB
WA No. 517 of 2026
HC-KAR
AND:
SMT. RATHNAMMA,
W/O. LATE NARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT LAGUMENAHALLI VILLAGE,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 049.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.DHANANJAY JOSHI., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.POOJITH PRASAD.D., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 16/09/2025 PASSED IN WP NO.429/2021 BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND DISMISS THE SAID WRIT
PETITION WITH EXEMPLARY COST.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The present intra Court appeal has been filed
impugning the Judgment and order dated 16.09.2025
passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.429/2021.
NC: 2026:KHC:14537-DB
HC-KAR
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the learned Single Judge.
3. The case of the petitioner is that entries in the
revenue records in respect of the land measuring 01 Acre
22 Guntas in Sy.No.22 of Lagumenahalli Village, earlier
Hosakote Taluk now Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East
Taluk were made in favor of the petitioner in the year
1978 and Saguvali Chit was issued on 18.12.1978.
4. According to the State, no such grant exists in
the revenue record and Saguvali Chit and the order of
Tahsildar dated 18.12.1978 are based on the forged grant,
if any. It is further submitted that as no grant exists and
the entries have been made in the revenue record in
respect of the land in favor of the petitioner on the basis of
the forged document, the Special Deputy Commissioner in
exercise of power under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, 1964 has issued notice and drawn the
NC: 2026:KHC:14537-DB
HC-KAR
proceedings for deleting the entries in respect of the said
land in favor of the petitioner.
5. A submission is made by Mr.Mohammad Jaffar
Shah., that the learned Single Judge ignoring this vital
aspect, has allowed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner
against the change in the revenue entries from the name
of the petitioner to 'Sarakari Gunduthopu'.
6. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel
Sri.Dhananjay Joshi., appearing for the petitioner submits
that till date no competent authority has determined in the
appropriate proceedings that the grant in favor of the
petitioner is a forged document. Unless and until the
competent authority opines that the grant, on the basis of
which the entries were made in the revenue record with
respect to the land in question in the year 1978 and which
continued to exist in the name of the petitioner till, the
impugned entries were changed as 'Sarakari Gunduthopu',
NC: 2026:KHC:14537-DB
HC-KAR
the revenue authorities ought not to have changed the
entries.
7. We have considered the submissions. We are of
the considered view that till the competent authority
records a finding that the grant in favor of the petitioner
was not a genuine but a forged document, on the basis of
which the revenue entries were made in favor of the
petitioner in respect of the land in question, the revenue
entries should stand in the name of the petitioner.
However, the same would be subject to the outcome of
the pending proceedings which have been drawn by the
Special Deputy Commissioner in R.R.T.No.3/2020-21 in
accordance with the law.
8. Let the entries be restored in the name of the
petitioner. However, in Column No.11 of the RTC, the
order passed by this Court that 'the entries in the name of
the petitioner would be subject to the final outcome of the
NC: 2026:KHC:14537-DB
HC-KAR
pending proceedings before the Special Deputy
Commissioner in R.R.T.No.3/2020-21' be shown.
9. Needless to say that, till the issue is finally
determined, the parties shall maintain status-quo in
respect of the possession and no third party right should
be created in respect of the said land.
10. With the above observations, the Writ Appeal is
disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
TKN
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2
