[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Sri T Uma Shankar on 17 March, 2026
-1-
WA No. 1560 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
®
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1560 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
REPRESENTED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD
BENGALURU-560009
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
Digitally LAND RECORDS
signed by BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
VASANTHA
KUMARY B KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD
K BENGALURU-560009
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
KARNATAKA
LAND RECORDS
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
KRISHNARAJAPURAM
BENGALURU-560037
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION
KANDAYA BHAVANA
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560009
-2-
WA No. 1560 of 2024
6. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
K.R. PURAM
BENGALURU-560037
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA)
AND:
1. SRI T UMA SHANKAR
S/O LATE H THIPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT NO.22, SATHYA SAI NILAYA
CHINNAPPANAHALLI
MARATHAHALLI
BENGALURU-560037
2. SRI L MAHESH
S/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO.13, CHINNAPPANAHALLI
HANUMA REDDY LAYOUT
DODDANEKKUNDI POST
BENGALURU-560037
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHANKAR C. REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI SAMPREETH V, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
20.12.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.
NO.18295/2022 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 23.02.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
D K SINGH PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WA No. 1560 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
1. The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning
the judgment and order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18295/2022.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the
writ Court, for the sake of convenience.
FACTS:
3. The dispute relates to the land bearing Survey No.20 of
Chinnappanahali Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East
Taluk. As per the petitioner, the said land had fallen to the
share of the grandfather of the petitioner viz., Sri H. Hanuma
Reddy s/o Sri Chikkamuniswamy Reddy in the family partition
that was effected between the children of late Sri
Chikkamuniswamy Reddy. The partition was recorded in writing
and registered in Partition Deed dated 30.09.1955.
4. The grandfather of the petitioner and others had made an
application for conferring occupancy rights as the said land was
classified as inam land. The Deputy Commissioner for Inams
Abolition, Bengaluru, vide order dated 19.12.1966 in Case No.1
& 18/1959-60, had directed for registering the applicants as
occupants in respect of the land measuring 4 acres 39 guntas
and kharab land measuring 10 acres 20 guntas in Survey No.20
of Chinnappanahali Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East
Taluk, under Section 10 of the Mysore (Personal and
Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Inams Abolition Act').
5. The revenue records got mutated in the name of the
petitioner's grandfather in view of the order dated 19.12.1966
passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams
Abolition, Bengaluru District. The Special Deputy Commissioner
initiated proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Land
Revenue Act') to examine the revenue records that stood in the
name of the father of the petitioner viz., Sri H. Thippa Reddy in
respect of the land in Survey No.20 of Chinnappanahali Village,
K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. The Special Deputy
Commissioner, vide order dated 28.01.2008 passed in RRT(2)
CR No.29/2006-2007, held that the entries made in favour of
the father of the petitioner and others in the revenue records in
respect of the land in Survey No.20 were not based on the
Government grant orders. It was further held that the grant
made in favour of the petitioner's grandfather was not proper.
Consequently, the Special Deputy Commissioner directed the
Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, to resume the land to the
Government.
6. The order dated 28.01.2008 passed by the Special
Deputy Commissioner in RRT(2) CR No.29/2006-2007 came to
be challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.3069/2008. The
learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition vide
judgment and order dated 20.08.2010.
7. The petitioner filed W.A.Nos.3266-3268/2010 against the
order dated 20.08.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.3069/2008. The Division Bench, after considering the
case, had allowed the writ appeals and set aside the order
passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 28.01.2008
as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated
20.08.2010, vide its judgment and order dated 27.01.2016 and
remanded the matter back to the Special Deputy Commissioner
for fresh consideration of the entire issue on hand and to verify
the records and pass appropriate orders afresh.
8. On remand, the Special Deputy Commissioner, after
examining the records and hearing all the parties, passed the
order dated 31.08.2016, whereby the earlier proceedings
initiated by the Special Deputy Commissioner in RRT(2) CR
No.29/2006-2007 under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act were dropped and the grant made in favour of the
petitioner's grandfather was confirmed as genuine and valid.
9. This order dated 31.08.2016 passed in RRT(2) CR
No.29/2006-2007 by the Special Deputy Commissioner was
challenged by one of the family members of the petitioner viz.,
Smt. H.G. Lakshmi in W.P.No.23931/2017. The learned Single
Judge, vide judgment and order dated 26.08.2020, allowed the
said writ petition and set aside the order dated 30.08.2016
passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, North Sub-
Division, Bengaluru District in RRT(2) CR No.29/2006-2007
insofar as the petitioner-Smt. H.G. Lakshmi was concerned.
The matter was remanded back to the Special Deputy
Commissioner and the parties were directed to appear before
the Special Deputy Commissioner on 10.09.2020. It was further
directed that the Special Deputy Commissioner should consider
the case of the petitioner, Smt. H.G.Lakshmi, in accordance
with law and in the process, should not re-open the question as
to whether the land belonged to the Government or not, if it
had already been decided.
10. The learned Single Judge had remanded the matter back
to the Special Deputy Commissioner as the Special Deputy
Commissioner, before passing the order dated 31.08.2016, did
not issue notice to Smt. H.G.Lakshmi and no decision was
taken as to whether any extent of property in Survey No.20 of
Chinnappanahali Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk
needed to be mutated in the name of the said petitioner- Smt.
H.G. Lakshmi.
11. Smt. H.G. Lakshmi filed contempt petitions in CCC
No.132/2021 c/w CCC No.2/2021 alleging violation of the order
of status quo contained in the judgment and order dated
26.08.2020 passed in W.P.No.23931/2017 inasmuch as during
the pendency of the proceedings before the Special Deputy
Commissioner, the accused No.3 therein had entered into a
registered deed of family settlement on 02.12.2020 in respect
of the land in question and the accused Nos.1 and 2 had passed
the order dated 20.01.2021 directing mutation of entries in
favour of H. Thippa Reddy and H. Satyanarayana Reddy. It
was further alleged that on the basis of the said family
settlement, the accused No.3 had entered into Joint
Development Agreement (JDA) dated 02.12.2020.
12. The Division Bench, which heard the contempt petitions,
took note of the order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the Special
Deputy Commissioner, whereby a direction was issued to the
Tahsildar East Taluk, Bengaluru to restore the khata in respect
of the land bearing Survey No.20 by virtue of MR Nos.35/74-
75, 1/80-81, 2/83-84, 4/89-90, 7/2003-2004 etc. The Division
Bench also took note of the fact that Smt. H.G. Lakshmi
claimed share in respect of the land measuring 3 acres 5
guntas in Survey No.20. The entire extent of land in Survey
No.20 is 21 acres 35 guntas. The aforesaid order dated
31.08.2016 was quashed by the learned Single Judge vide
judgment and order dated 26.08.2020 insofar as it pertained to
the complainant-Smt. H.G.Lakshmi was concerned as no notice
was issued to her by the Special Deputy Commissioner before
passing the order.
13. The Division Bench further opined that the order of status
quo could not be read in abstract and was required to be read
in the context of the prayer made in the writ petition. In the
writ petition, the prayer was made for quashment of the order
dated 31.08.2016, which was an order pertaining to the entries
made in the revenue records. Thus, the order of status quo had
to be read in the context of the revenue entries made in the
proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964. In pursuance to the family settlement and
the JDA, neither the revenue records were altered nor there
was a change in the nature of the property, its character or the
topography. The order of mutation dated 20.01.2021 was
passed on the basis of the order passed by the Special Deputy
Commissioner and not on the basis of the family settlement
and therefore, there was no willful disobedience of the
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, vide order dated 06.09.2021, the contempt
proceedings were dropped with liberty to Smt. H.G. Lakshmi to
take action in accordance with law in respect of her grievance,
if any.
14. Subsequently, the Special Deputy Commissioner passed
another order dated 08.04.2021 stating that the proceedings
under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964
were to be dropped and further ordered to continue the
revenue entries in respect of the land in question in terms of
the earlier order dated 31.08.2016.
- 10 -
15. In the meantime, certain residents of Chinnappanahalli
Village submitted a representation dated 26.07.2021 to the
authorities stating that the land in Survey No.20 be earmarked
for use as a burial ground for the benefit of the villagers. As no
decision was taken on their representation, a Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) in W.P.No.8649/2022 came to be filed before
this Court seeking a direction to the authorities concerned to
consider the said representation. This Court, vide order dated
10.06.2022 passed in the said PIL, held that it was for the
concerned authorities to decide as to whether there was any
requirement of burial ground in the village concerned. However,
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the
PIL came to be disposed of with the direction that the pending
representation should be decided by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru
East Taluk, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru or any other competent
authority in accordance with law expeditiously.
SUBJECT OF CHALLENGE IN W.P.NO. 8649/2022:
16. The Assistant Director of Land Records (ADLR) had issued
the notice dated 30.08.2022 for reserving the B-Kharab land in
Survey No.20 measuring 3 acres 27 guntas of Chinnappanahalli
Village of K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk as one Sri
- 11 -
L.Mahesh had filed the PIL in W.P.No.8649/2022 and this
Court, vide order dated 10.06.2022, had directed the
authorities to take action on the representation dated
26.07.2021 as per law within a period of three months. It was
further stated in the notice that spot inspection was carried out
by the Deputy Tahsildar and Revenue Inspector jointly in
respect of Survey No.20 for earmarking the land for graveyard,
for which the survey measurement work was fixed on
06.09.2024. The petitioner and others were directed to remain
present on the spot.
17. The said notice came to be challenged by the petitioner in
the present W.P.No.18295/2022. The petitioner took the
contention that no where in the revenue records, any extent of
land was recorded as B-Kharab land. In fact, the entire extent
of land in Survey No.20 was granted in favour of the
grandfather of the petitioner. If the land was not earmarked as
B-Kharab land, the Government cannot change the nature of
the land from A-Kharab to B-Kharab.
FINDINGS OF THE WRIT COURT IN THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT:
18. The learned Single Judge, vide impugned judgment and
order, has held that it is undisputed that the land in Survey
- 12 -
No.20 was granted in favour of the petitioner's grandfather
under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act. The validity of
the grant has already been confirmed by the Special Deputy
Commissioner after remand by the Division Bench. The records
would clearly show that 4 acres 39 guntas of cultivable land
along with 10 acres 20 guntas of kharab land attached thereto
forms part of the grant and the petitioner's holding. The kharab
land in question is situated within and attached to the cultivable
land belonging to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the
land ought to be treated as A-Kharab land which forms part of
the holder's land. Once the grant has been confirmed and the
land formed part of the petitioner's holding, the authorities
cannot identify the same as B-Kharab land for burial ground
purpose. If the land is required for burial ground, it would be
open to the authorities to identify a suitable Government land
in some other survey number and thus, allowed the writ
petition and set aside the notice dated 30.08.2022 issued by
the ADLR and directed the Deputy Commissioner and the
Tahsildar to re-classify the land measuring 3 acres 27 guntas in
Survey No.20 as A-Kharab land. Further, direction has been
issued that the entire kharab land attached to the petitioner's
cultivable land be re-classified as A-Kharab land.
- 13 -
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:
19. Mr. Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the appellants, has
submitted that in pursuance to the direction issued by the
Division Bench of this Court in the PIL i.e., W.P.No.8649/2022
vide order dated 10.06.2022, the representation of Sri
L.Mahesh dated 26.07.2021 for earmarking the land for burial
ground was to be considered and therefore, the notice dated
30.08.2022 was issued by the ADLR. The petitioner has
challenged the said notice without there being any final order
and therefore, the writ petition itself was not maintainable.
20. Learned Additional Government Advocate has further
submitted that both A-Kharab and B-Kharab lands are
Government lands. A-Kharab land is attached to the cultivable
land, but the ownership remains with the Government whereas,
B-Kharab land is earmarked for public purposes. It is submitted
that the land in question i.e., Survey No.20 of Chinnappanahali
Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, was originally
classified as "Sarkari Kharab" in the revenue records. Total
extent of land in Survey No.20 is 19 acres 19 guntas. Out of
this total land in Survey No.20, occupancy certificate was
issued in favour of the petitioner's 4 acres 39 guntas
- 14 -
(cultivable) and 10 acres 20 guntas A-Kharab, total 15 acres 19
guntas. The balance land around 3 acres 27 guntas is 'Sarkari
Kharab'. He, therefore, submits that the learned Single Judge
ought not to have issued the direction for converting the entire
land into A-Kharab land and this direction is wholly unjustified.
The High Court cannot direct conversion of the nature of land
from B-Kharab to A-Kharab. It is, therefore, submitted that the
impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
21. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.1 has submitted that there was no land in the
revenue records which was recorded as a B-Kharab land. The
petitioner's grandfather was issued occupancy certificate under
the provisions of Inams Abolition Act in respect of the entire
extent of land in Survey No.20, which would include the
cultivable and A-Kharab land. When the land was not
earmarked as B-Kharab in the revenue records, the
Government has no authority to change the A-Kharab land to
B-Kharab land for the purpose of providing the burial ground.
- 15 -
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
22. We have considered the submissions.
23. The Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the 1966 Rules') have been framed in exercise of
the powers conferred under Section 197 of the Land Revenue
Act. Rule 21 provides for classification of the land for the
purpose of assessment of land revenue with respect to their
productive qualities. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 provides that
during the process of classification, the land included as
unarable should be treated as 'Pot Kharab land'. The Pot
Kharab lands have been classified in two sub-categories:
(a) that which is unfit for agriculture at the time of survey
including the farm buildings or threshing floors of the holder,
which is called A-Kharab land; and (b) that which is not
assessed because (i) it is reserved or assigned for public
purpose; (ii) it is occupied by a road or recognised footpath or
by a tank or stream used by persons other than the holders for
irrigation, drinking or domestic purposes; (iii) it is used as
burial ground or cremation ground; (iv) it is assigned for village
potteries.
- 16 -
24. Rule 21 of the 1966 Rules is extracted hereunder:
"21. Classification.-(1) For the purposes of
assessment, all lands shall be classed with
respect to their productive qualities. The
number of classes and their relative value
reckoned in annas (16 annas, i.e., 100 per
cent classification value) shall be fixed
under the orders of the Commissioner for
Survey, Settlement and Land Records with
reference to the circumstances of the
different tracts of the State to which the
Survey extends and to the nature of the
cultivation, and the classification results
shall be recorded in the following books
and forms.-
(a) Prathi Book;
(b) Bagayat Taktha;
(c) Darwari;
(d) Classer's Register;
(e) Statement showing bifurcation of soil
and water assessment;
(f) Akarband.
(2) During the process of classification
land included as unarable shall be treated
as "Pot Kharab". Pot Kharab lands may be
classified as follows.-
(a) That which is classified as unfit for
agriculture at the time of survey including
- 17 -
the farm buildings or threshing floors of
the holder;
(b) That which is not assessed because,
(i) it is reserved or assigned for public
purpose; (ii) it is occupied by a road or
recognised footpath or by a tank or
stream used by persons other than the
holders for irrigation, drinking or domestic
purposes; (iii) used as burial ground or
cremation ground; (iv) assigned for village
potteries."
25. It is not in dispute that 15 acres 19 guntas of land (4
acres 39 guntas cultivable and 10 acres 20 guntas A-Kharab) in
Survey No.20 of Chinnappanahalli Village, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk, was granted to the petitioner in
pursuance to the Occupancy Certificate dated 19.12.1966. No
land in Survey No.20 had been earmarked as B-Kharab.
26. The occupancy certificate has been issued only for 15
acres 19 guntas of land in Survey No.20. Whether there is
more land in Survey No.20 than 15 acres 19 guntas is yet to be
determined by undertaking survey with due notice to the
petitioner and any other affected person(s). Without conducting
the survey to determine the total extent of land in Survey
No.20, issuing impugned notice to declare 3 acres 27 guntas of
land as B-Kharab to reserve it for burial/cremation ground is
unsustainable in law.
- 18 -
27. It may also be noted that if the land has been used as
burial ground or cremation ground, it is a B-Kharab land
besides if it is reserved or assigned for public purpose or is
occupied by a road or recognised footpath or by a tank or
stream used by persons other than the holders for irrigation,
drinking or domestic purposes. No land in Survey No.20 has
been earmarked for the public purpose, and it has not been
assigned for other purposes as mentioned in sub-rule (2)(b) of
Rule 21 of the 1966 Rules.
28. We are, therefore, of the view that as none of the factors
as mentioned in sub-rule (2)(b) of Rule 21 exist, the said land
even otherwise cannot be now earmarked for cremation
ground. As the land is not used for burial ground or cremation
ground and there exists no tank or stream and it is not
occupied by road or recognised footpath, the impugned notice
dated 30.08.2022 is unsustainable in law and has been rightly
set aside.
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dispose of the writ
appeal in the aforesaid terms.
- 19 -
In view of disposal of the writ appeal, pending IAs, if any,
do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
BKV
