[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Gangojamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2026
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16785
WP No. 5343 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 5343 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT GANGOJAMMA
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR
SRI. CHANDRA BABU,
SON OF LATE MUNIVENKATA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GARUDADHRAHALLI,
BETHMANGALA HOBLI,
KGF TALUK -563 122.
PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINIVASAN T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
VANAMALA
N REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
Location: REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
HIGH M.S. BUILDING,
COURT OF BENGALURU-560001.
KARNATAKA
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR 563 103.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLAR SUB-DIVISION,
KOLAR 563 103.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16785
WP No. 5343 of 2026
HC-KAR
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
BANGARPET TALUK,
BANGARPET-563 114.
5. THE TAHSILDAR,
KGF TALUK,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
ROBERTSONPET POST, KGF-563 122.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B. P. RADHA, AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 04/12/2025 IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.
LND/121/2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 30/07/2025 IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING
LNDRUC/33/2023 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B AND
CONSEQUENTLY UPHOLD THE GRANT MADE IN FAVOUR OF
THE PETITIONERS MOTHER AND PROTECT THE
POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PETITIONER IN
RESPECT OF LAND IN SY.NO.10 OF GARUDADHRAHALLI,
BETHMANGALA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, MEASURING 4
ACRES 25 GUNTAS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:16785
WP No. 5343 of 2026
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for
all the respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that 25 years
after the grant was made in favour of the petitioner, an appeal
is filed by the Tahsildar before the Assistant Commissioner,
Kolar Sub-Division in the proceedings bearing
No.LNDRUC/33/2023 seeking to cancel a grant that was made
in the year 1998-99. Learned counsel submits that no reference
is made to the provision under which the appeal is filed, no
application for condonation of delay is filed, and
no such consideration is forthcoming from the impugned order
passed by the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure - B either in
respect of the provision applicable or the question of delay
considered by the Assistant Commissioner.
3. Learned counsel submits that this Court, in the case
of Pyari Ma and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and others
NC: 2026:KHC:16785
HC-KAR
in W.P.No.22426/2021 disposed of on 12.01.2022 has held
that the action, if at all for cancellation of the entries made in
the revenue records by invoking suo moto powers under
Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for
short, 'the Act'] or any such drastic measure should be taken
within a reasonable time.
4. There is a substance in the submission made by the
learned counsel for petitioner that the action of the Tahsildar is
clearly biased against the petitioner. The grant was made in the
year 1998-99 and along with the petitioner, many other
persons were granted lands in the same survey number.
However, action is sought to be taken only against the
petitioner and without filing an application for condonation of
delay. Moreover, when the grants are made in the year 1998-
99, it is clear that the application for regularisation has been
made much prior to the said date. This Court, in the case of
Ashwathappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka and
others in W.P.No.2411/2022 disposed of on 18.02.2022
has clearly held that consideration of the application for
regularisation should be made in terms of the date when the
NC: 2026:KHC:16785
HC-KAR
application is made and not when the application is taken up for
consideration.
5. Having regard to all these aspects, it is clear that
when the competent authority passed an order in the year
1998-99 granting the lands in favour of the petitioner, the
competent authority had taken into consideration the relevant
provisions and found that the lands are required to be
regularised in favour of the petitioner, as was done in the case
of other applicants.
6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Assistant
Commissioner at Annexure - B and the order at Annexure - A
passed by the Deputy Commissioner in the second appeal filed
under Section 50 of the Act are hereby quashed and set aside.
If the revenue records have been mutated pursuant to the
impugned orders, respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Bangarpet Taluk
and the respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District
are hereby directed to restore the name of the petitioner in the
revenue records as expeditiously as possible and at any rate
NC: 2026:KHC:16785
HC-KAR
within a period of six [6] weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE
RB
