Smt Vijayalakshmi vs The Tahsildar
2026 Latest Caselaw 2525 Kant

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2525 Kant
Judgement Date : 23 March, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Vijayalakshmi vs The Tahsildar on 23 March, 2026

Author: R Devdas

Bench: R Devdas

                                               -1-
                                                           NC: 2026:KHC:16261
                                                          WP No. 8464 of 2026


                   HC-KAR




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                           BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 8464 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI
                        W/O RAJANNA V
                        AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

                   2.   SRI. MANJUNATH V
                        S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
                        AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

                        BOTH ARE R/A BULLAHALLI VILLAGE
                        VIJAYAPURA HOBLI
                        DEVANAHALLI TALUK
                        BANGALORE RURAL-562110.
                                                               ...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed   (BY SRI. ANIKETH K.U., ADVOCATE FOR
by JUANITA             SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)
THEJESWINI
Location: HIGH     AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA          THE TAHSILDAR
                   DEVANAHALLI TALUK
                   BANGALORE RURAL- 562110
                                                               ...RESPONDENT
                   (BY SMT. B.P.RADHA., AGA)

                          THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
                   CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
                   ORDER DTD. 17.02.2026 IN NCR/CR.308/2022-23 PASSED BY
                                 -2-
                                               NC: 2026:KHC:16261
                                              WP No. 8464 of 2026


HC-KAR




RESPONDENT AS PER ANNX-A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS


                           ORAL ORDER

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn the

attention of this Court to Annexure-C, the RTC of the year

2025-26 and submits that even in terms of the latest RTC

in Survey No.39/3 of Ballahalli village, Vijayapura Hobli,

Devanahalli Taluk, the total extent of land is shown as 09

Guntas and 06 Guntas are shown as 'B' kharab land and

the remaining 03 Guntas are shown in the name of the

petitioners. However, in the handwritten RTCs, the total

extent of land in Survey No.39 is shown as 16 Guntas, out

of which 06 Guntas are shown as 'A' kharab land and the

remaining 10 Guntas were shown in the name of

Sri.Venkatappa S/o Subbaiah, through whom the

petitioners herein claim rights. Subsequently, there was

NC: 2026:KHC:16261

HC-KAR

partition in the family and land to an extent of 09 Guntas

fall to the share of Sri.Subramani S/o Narayanappa.

Having regard to these aspects that were reflected in the

RTCs and the Revenue Records, the petitioners purchased

the said lands from Sri.Subramani under a registered Sale

Deed dated 25.03.2024 at Annexure-B.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners draws the

attention of this Court to the Schedule in the Sale Deed

and submits that the total extent of land purchased by the

petitioners is 09 Guntas, out of which 06 Guntas are

shown as kharab land and the remaining 03 Guntas are

shown as khushki lands. Further, the learned Counsel

submits that in the impugned order at Annexure-A the

respondent-Tahsildar has stated that though notice was

issued to the petitioners on 21.08.2025 they have not

given any reply. On the other hand, at Annexure-E is the

reply given by the petitioners on 02.09.2025 as

acknowledged at the bottom of the page. Learned Counsel

NC: 2026:KHC:16261

HC-KAR

further submits that the impugned order has been passed

without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

3. Having regard to the facts narrated hereinabove

and the fact that the Tahsildar has stated in the impugned

order at Annexure-A that no reply is given by the

petitioners, it clearly show that the petitioners have not

been afforded an opportunity of hearing before such an

order could be passed by the Tahsildar. Moreover, the

learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the

Karnataka Revision Settlement Aakarbandh, there appears

to be an order passed by the Assistant Director of Land

Records in proceedings bearing No.ADLR/CR/No.164/

2020-2021, which is again an order passed without notice

to the petitioners or their predecessors in title.

4. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the respondent-Tahsildar cannot

be permitted to proceed on the basis of the impugned

order at Annexure-A dated 17.02.2026. The provision

NC: 2026:KHC:16261

HC-KAR

contained in Section 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue

Act, 1964, empowers the competent authority to take

action against persons who have encroached upon public

property, which would be a drastic step, having regard to

the fact that it is a summary proceeding. Therefore,

unless an opportunity of hearing is given to the

petitioners, the respondent-Tahsildar cannot be permitted

to evict the petitioners.

5. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the

following:

ORDER

(1) The writ petition is partly allowed while

setting aside the impugned order dated

17.02.2026 at Annexure-A passed by the

respondent-Tahsildar. However, liberty is

also reserved to the petitioners to raise a

challenge to the order said to have been

passed by the Assistant Director of Land

NC: 2026:KHC:16261

HC-KAR

Records in proceedings bearing No. ADLR/CR

No.164/2020-2021.