Karnataka High Court
Smt Shwetha D Rao vs State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2026
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:13201
WP No. 9521 of 2021
C/W WP No. 22812 of 2023
WP No. 2548 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 9521 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 22812 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 2548 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
IN WP No. 9521/2021
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHWETHA D.RAO
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
D/O DEVADAS RAO,
NO.831, 13TH CROSS ROAD,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560 086.
REP. BY GPA MRS. G PRATHIMA PAI
Digitally signed ...PETITIONER
by JUANITA (BY SMT. POONAM PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THEJESWINI
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ,
M.S.BUILIDING, VIDHANA VEEDI,
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:13201
WP No. 9521 of 2021
C/W WP No. 22812 of 2023
WP No. 2548 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SUB-DIVISION,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
5. THE KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.5, ABHAYA COMLEX. 3RD FLOOR,
RISALDAR STREET, SESHADRIPURAM,
BANGALORE - 560 020
RE BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4
SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT R2, 3 AND
4 SURVEYING THE LAND TO AN EXTENT OF 4 ACRE 30 GUNTAS
IN SY.NO.26 OF MALIGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, KENGERI
HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, HOLDING PODING
OPERATION AND PREPARING AKARBAND AS PER THE
ANNEXURE-G AND G1 DATED 23.10.2019.
IN WP NO. 22812/2023
BETWEEN:
SMT SHWETHA D RAO
AGED 41 YEARS
D/O DEVADAS RAO
NO.831, 13TH CROSS ROAD
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:13201
WP No. 9521 of 2021
C/W WP No. 22812 of 2023
WP No. 2548 of 2024
HC-KAR
BANGALORE - 560 086
REP BY GPA HOLDER MRS G PRATHIMA PAI
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
W/O. K.S. PRABHU
R/AT NO.199, 17TH CROSS
M.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 040.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. POONAM S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISIONER
BANGALORE URBAN
K G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001
3. TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
K G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001
4. KARNTAKA SLUM DEVLEOPMENT BOARD
NO.55, 3RD FLOOR, ABHAYA COMPLEX
RISALDAR STREET, BANGALORE - 560 020
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3
SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
ORDER BEARING NO. LND (S) CR 585/17-18 DTD 22.02.18
ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, QUASHING THE
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:13201
WP No. 9521 of 2021
C/W WP No. 22812 of 2023
WP No. 2548 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORDER BEARING NO.LND(K)CR 87/16-17 DTD 27.09.18
ISSUED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 2548/2024
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHWETHA D RAO
AGED 43 YEARS,
D/O DEVADAS RAO
NO.831, 13TH CROSS ROAD
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 086
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
MRS. G PRATHIMA PAI
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
W/O K S PRABHU
R/AT NO.199, 17TH CROSS,
M.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560040.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C.N. MAHADESWARAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SESHU V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R2
SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING
APPLICANT IN I.A.NO.2/2024)
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:13201
WP No. 9521 of 2021
C/W WP No. 22812 of 2023
WP No. 2548 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PROHIBITION
PROHIBITING THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 FROM
PROCEEDINGS WITH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CASE NO.
RRT(S)CR 107 /2013-14 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL COMMON ORDER
These three writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner
and the disputes involved in all three writ petitions are also
connected to each other and therefore, these three writ
petitions are clubbed together, heard and are being disposed of
by this common order.
2. The petitioner filed a writ petition in
W.P.No.1870/2010 seeking a direction to the respondent
authorities for effecting measurements, mapping of sub-division
and apportionment of assessment in respect of the sub-
divisions and further for mutations as contemplated under Rule
72 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, with respect to
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:13201
WP No. 9521 of 2021
C/W WP No. 22812 of 2023
WP No. 2548 of 2024
HC-KAR
the land purchased by the petitioner under a registered sale
deed dated 21.07.2003, measuring 4 acres 30 guntas in Survey
No.26 of Maligondanahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore
South Taluk. During the course of the said writ petition, it was
stated on behalf of the respondent authorities that they are
unable to proceed with the survey and phodi proceedings due
to non-availability of the records in the office of the Tahsildar.
This Court held that the revenue authorities cannot decline to
conduct the phodi on the ground that the records are not
available. Nevertheless, this Court directed the respondent
authorities to do everything possible to retrieve the file.
Nevertheless, in spite of best efforts, if the file is not traced,
they are directed to build up a parallel file as per the procedure
in vogue. Further, the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk was
directed to consider the petitioner's representation for
surveying the land, holding the phodi operation and preparing
the akarband, etc., in accordance with law. It was directed that
the entire exercise should be completed within four months
from the date of the order.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:13201
WP No. 9521 of 2021
C/W WP No. 22812 of 2023
WP No. 2548 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after
such order was passed by this Court, since there was
interference at the hands of one Sri.R.Ravikumar, the petitioner
approached the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar passed an order in
proceedings bearing No.TQ.PR.1/2010-11 stating that after
verification of the records, it is found that in survey No.26 of
Marigondanahalli, which was earlier an Inam village, had a total
extent of 56.18 hectares and the Special Deputy Commissioner
for Inams abolition had passed various orders re-granting lands
to various persons. One such grantee was late Sri.Muniyappa.
The petitioner herein purchased the lands in question from the
children of Sri.Muniyappa. However, it was found that the
respondent therein, namely, Sri.R.Ravikumar also had
purchased the lands in the same survey number from a
different grantee. It was later identified that the two lands are
separate and the identification of the two lands was also made
and accordingly, the matter was disposed of, with a direction to
proceed to conduct the phodi in favour of the petitioner in
terms of the boundaries found in the sale deed belonging to the
petitioner.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:13201
WP No. 9521 of 2021
C/W WP No. 22812 of 2023
WP No. 2548 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. Nevertheless, when the phodi proceedings were not
completed, the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings in
CCC.No.1263/2010. During the course of the proceedings,
since it was submitted on behalf of the respondent authorities,
that notices for the survey have been issued to the
neighbouring landowners, the contempt proceedings were
accordingly closed, recording the submission made on behalf of
the respondent authorities that the phodi proceedings will be
conducted subsequent to the adjoining landowners being
served with the notices. Nevertheless, when the phodi
proceedings were not completed, one more contempt
proceeding was initiated in CCC.No.600/2012 and during the
course of the said proceedings, an affidavit was filed by the
then Tahsildar. In paragraph No.7 of the affidavit filed by the
Tahsildar, it was stated that on 20.10.2012, in the presence of
the landowners, a survey was conducted and in terms of the
boundaries shown in the sale deed belonging to the petitioner,
the land claimed by the petitioner was identified, and a
mahazar was drawn in the presence of the local villagers.
Accordingly, the phodi proceedings were concluded in terms of
the sketch appended to the affidavit.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:13201
WP No. 9521 of 2021
C/W WP No. 22812 of 2023
WP No. 2548 of 2024
HC-KAR
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
although it is true that such an affidavit was filed before the
Hon'ble Division Bench, nevertheless, it is the contention of the
petitioner that after the phodi proceedings were concluded, a
new number was not assigned to the land belonging to the
petitioner. In that view of the matter, the writ petition in
W.P.No.9521/2021 is filed by the petitioner with a prayer to
issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities
to survey the land belonging to the petitioner, hold a phodi
operation, prepare an akarband as per Annexures-G and G1
dated 23.10.2019. During the pendency of the said writ
petition, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that the
respondent- Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District,
had passed an order on 22.02.2018 granting 5 acres of land in
Survey No.26 in favour of respondent No.5-The Karnataka
Slum Development Board for establishing a layout under the
'Ashraya scheme' for distribution of sites in favour of deserving
persons. On the basis of the said order, passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, respondent No.5-Board put up a notice board on
the land in question saying that the land belongs to respondent
No.5-Board in terms of the orders passed by the Deputy
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13201
WP No. 9521 of 2021
C/W WP No. 22812 of 2023
WP No. 2548 of 2024
HC-KAR
Commissioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed writ petition
No.22812/2023 raising a challenge to the order passed by the
Deputy Commissioner along with the order of possession at
Annexure-B.
6. Learned counsel submits that interim orders have
been passed in the said petition directing respondent No.5-
Board not to continue with its construction. Thereafter,
proceedings were initiated by the respondent-Deputy
Commissioner suo motu in exercise of powers conferred under
Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, in
case No.RRT(S)CR.107/2013-14. At this juncture, it is clarified
by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the
proceedings were initiated in the year 2013-14 and not in the
year 2024 as claimed by the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
the light of the facts narrated hereinabove, and in the light of
the law laid down by this Court in the matter of the exercise of
suo motu powers by the Deputy Commissioner/Special Deputy
Commissioners invoking Section 136(3) of the Act, more
particularly, in the case of SMT.PYARI MA AND OTHERS VS.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13201
WP No. 9521 of 2021
C/W WP No. 22812 of 2023
WP No. 2548 of 2024
HC-KAR
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in
W.P.No.22426/2021 decided on 12.01.2022, that such
initiation of proceedings for cancellation of grants or for
cancellation of the revenue entries, on the ground that the
entries are fraudulent, is required to be conducted within a
reasonable time from the date when which the entries were
made in the revenue records.
8. Learned counsel submits that this Court has taken
note of at least two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of MOHAMAD KAVI MOHAMAD AMIN VS.
FATMABAI IBRAHIM reported in (1997) 6 SCC 71 AND
JOINT COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY DISTRICT VS.
D.NARASING RAO AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 3 SCC
695 and paragraph No.25 of the decision in Joint Collector
has been extracted in the said judgment as follows:
"The legal position is fairly well settled by a long
line of decisions of this Court which have laid down that
even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for
the exercise of any power, revisional or otherwise, such
power must be exercised within a reasonable period.
This is so even in cases where allegations of fraud have
necessitated the exercise of any corrective power. We
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13201
WP No. 9521 of 2021
C/W WP No. 22812 of 2023
WP No. 2548 of 2024
HC-KAR
may briefly refer to some of the decisions only to bring
home the point that the absence of a stipulated period
of limitation makes little or no difference insofar as the
exercise of the power is concerned which ought to be
permissible only when the power is invoked within a
reasonable period."
Even in respect of the revisional jurisdiction, it
was held that delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction
is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were
to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean
avoidable and endless uncertainly in human affairs,
which is not the policy of law. Because, even when
there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercise of
such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to
creation of third-party rights, that cannot be trampled
by a belated exercise of a discretionary power especially
when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight.
Rule of law it is said must run closely with the rule of
life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised
are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a
reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply
describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not
extend the time for its correction to infinity; for
otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself
be tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests
such power in an authority. "
9. Learned counsel submits that thereafter several
judgments have been passed by this Court on the same lines as
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13201
WP No. 9521 of 2021
C/W WP No. 22812 of 2023
WP No. 2548 of 2024
HC-KAR
in the case of Pyari Ma, setting aside or quashing such
proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioners/Special
Deputy Commissioners invoking Section 136(3) of the Act on
the ground of the proceedings being initiated after
unreasonable delay. The cases referred to are writ petition in
W.P.No.41881/2019, NAGARATHNAMMA.S AND
ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS,
SMT.N.REVATHI AND OTHERS VS. ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION
AND CONNECTED MATTERS in W.P.No.25877/2017 dated
07.02.2022 and SMT.S.NAGALAKSHMI VS. THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT in
W.P.No.56799/2018 dated 14.01.2022. It is submitted
that the State Government has not challenged any of the
orders passed by this Court and therefore, the decision
rendered by this Court has attained finality. In this background,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the third petition
filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.2548/2024 should be allowed
by quashing the proceedings in case No.RRT(S)CR.107/2013-
14 initiated by the respondent, Special Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Urban District.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13201
WP No. 9521 of 2021
C/W WP No. 22812 of 2023
WP No. 2548 of 2024
HC-KAR
10. Learned counsel would further submit that having
regard to the facts narrated hereinabove, since it is clear that
the land belonging to the petitioner, it cannot be granted to any
other person, the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner in
which is under challenge in W.P.No. 22812/2023, should also
be quashed.
11. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits
that the proceedings were initiated by the Special Deputy
Commissioner invoking the powers conferred under Section
136(3) in the year 2013-14 and not in the year 2024, as
contended by the petitioner. Learned Additional Government
Advocate submits on instructions that the total extent of land in
Survey No.26 is 136 acres 16 guntas in terms of the akarband
and in terms of the claims of various persons, the total extent
of land would be 262 acres 21½ guntas. In that view of the
matter, proceedings have been initiated by the Special Deputy
Commissioner to cancel the revenue entries made in favour of
the original grantee Sri.Muniyappa, since according to the
respondent authorities no such grant was made in favour of
Sri.Muniyappa.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13201
WP No. 9521 of 2021
C/W WP No. 22812 of 2023
WP No. 2548 of 2024
HC-KAR
12. Learned counsel Sri.B.B.Patil, appearing for
respondent No.5-Board submits that the board is in occupation
of the lands granted by the Deputy Commissioner. It is not the
intention of respondent No.5-Board to usurp or encroach upon
the lands belonging to the petitioner. Constructions have
already commenced, but in terms of the interim directions
given by this Court, the constructions have been held up.
Learned counsel would therefore submit that the lands granted
by the Deputy Commissioner in favour of the respondent No.5-
Board have to be identified and if respondent No.5-Board is put
in possession of the said lands granted to the Deputy
Commissioner, it would protect the interest of the Board.
13. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent
authorities, Sri.B.B.Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.5-
Board and perused the petition papers.
14. Having regard to the undisputed facts narrated
hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that
initiation of proceedings at the hands of the Special Deputy
Commissioner to cancel the entries made in the revenue
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13201
WP No. 9521 of 2021
C/W WP No. 22812 of 2023
WP No. 2548 of 2024
HC-KAR
records in the year 1964 cannot be permitted at this juncture,
even if it is true that the proceedings were initiated in the year
2013-14, having regard to the law laid down by this Court in
the cases cited hereinabove. Moreover, third party rights have
been created and at this stage, if such proceedings are
permitted to be initiated and the earlier revenue entries are
permitted to be cancelled, it will be clearly in prejudice of the
rights of the petitioner who purchased the property in question
in the year 2003, and the name of the petitioner was also
entered in the revenue records pursuant to the registered sale
deed.
15. Having regard to the said position, what remains to
be considered is the orders passed by the Deputy
Commissioner granting lands in favour of respondent No.5-
Board. The rights of the petitioner cannot be prejudiced, since
the government or the competent authority cannot grant land
belonging to a private individual in favour of respondent No.5-
Board. In that regard, this Court finds that a sketch appended
to the affidavit filed at the hands of the Tahsildar before the
Hon'ble Division Bench in the contempt proceedings would
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13201
WP No. 9521 of 2021
C/W WP No. 22812 of 2023
WP No. 2548 of 2024
HC-KAR
become a relevant record for the identification of the land
belonging to the petitioner. This Court also finds that during the
course of the proceedings in W.P.No.9521/2021, directions
were issued to the respondent authorities to file a report along
with a sketch showing the total extent of land in Survey No.26
and the lands allotted by the Deputy Commissioner/State
Government to various entities in Survey No.26. Accordingly,
Annexure-AD has been produced by the petitioner in W.P.No.
22812/2023, where the lands granted to respondent No.5 is
identified as 4A and 4B in the sketch. What is further required
to be done to redress the grievance of the petitioner is to
identify the lands belonging to the petitioner in terms of the
phodi sketch filed along with the affidavit of the Tahsildar
before the Hon'ble Division Bench in CCC.No.1263/2010, which
has been produced as Annexure-R4 along with the statement of
objections filed at the hands of the respondent-State
Government, which is also filed as Annexure-P. The respondent
Tahsildar along with the jurisdictional-Assistant Director of Land
Records are required to proceed to identify the lands belonging
to the petitioner in terms of the phodi sketch as stated
hereinabove and find out as to whether the lands belonging to
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13201
WP No. 9521 of 2021
C/W WP No. 22812 of 2023
WP No. 2548 of 2024
HC-KAR
the petitioner would overlap the lands granted in favour of
respondent No.5-Board. If it is found that the land granted in
favour of respondent No.5-Board overlaps the land belonging to
the petitioner, then the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner will stand quashed. On the other hand, if the two
lands are found to be identified in different places, then the
order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in favour of the
respondent No.5-Board shall remain undisturbed.
16. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the
following order:
ORDER
i. W.P.No.9521/2021 is partly allowed while directing the respondents-Tahsildar, Assistant Director of Land Records and the Deputy Commissioner to assign a new number to the land belonging to the petitioner in terms of the phodi already conducted.
ii. W.P.No.2548/2024 is allowed while quashing
all further proceedings in case
No.RRT(S)CR:107/2013-14 initiated by the
respondent-Special Deputy Commissioner. iii. In so far as W.P.No.22812/2023 is concerned, the respondent-Tahsildar, jurisdictional
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13201 WP No. 9521 of 2021 C/W WP No. 22812 of 2023 WP No. 2548 of 2024 HC-KAR Assistant Director of Land Records shall proceed to identify the lands belonging to the petitioner in terms of the phodi sketch found at Annexure-P in W.P.No.22812/2023.
17. It is clarified that this is a sketch appended to the affidavit filed by the then Tahsildar, who clearly stated that the phodi proceedings are concluded in terms of the sketch appended to the affidavit in CCC.No.600/2012.
18. Similarly, the lands granted in favour of respondent No.5-Board which has been identified in terms of Annexure-AD in W.P.No.22812/2023, shall also be identified, and the two sketches shall be superimposed to find out whether the lands belonging to the petitioner and the lands granted to respondent No.5-Board overlap each other or not.
19. If it is found that the lands belonging to the petitioner and the land granted to respondent No.5-Board do not overlap each other, then respondent No.5-Board is free to proceed with its activities and simultaneously, the grant order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in favour of respondent No.5-Board shall remain undisturbed.
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13201 WP No. 9521 of 2021 C/W WP No. 22812 of 2023 WP No. 2548 of 2024 HC-KAR
20. On the other hand, if it is found that the lands belonging to the petitioner and lands granted to respondent No.5-Board overlap each other, then the lands granted in favour of respondent No. 5-Board in terms of order dated 22.02.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner shall stand quashed and set aside. The construction put up by respondent No.5-Board in such a situation is found to be on the lands belonging to the petitioner, respondent No.5-Board shall remove all such construction and ensure that the vacant possession is handed over to the petitioner, failing which, the petitioner can also remove the construction and encroachment and recover the cost from respondent No.5-Board. It is needless to observe that the Deputy Commissioner or the respondent-state is free to identify any other land to be granted in favour of respondent No.5-Board.
21. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
22. For that purpose, the petitioner and the competent Officer from respondent No.5-Board are directed to be present
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13201 WP No. 9521 of 2021 C/W WP No. 22812 of 2023 WP No. 2548 of 2024 HC-KAR at the spot on 12.03.2026 at 11.00 a.m. to enable the Tahsildar and the jurisdictional Assistant Director of Land Records to conduct a survey and identify the properties.
23. Needless to observe that till the Tahsildar and the Assistant Director of Land Records prepare a report identifying the two lands, respondent No.5-Board shall not proceed with the construction or any other activity.
All pending I.As stand disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS) JUDGE rv/GPG