Karnataka High Court
Seetharamaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:26180
WP No. 30695 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.30695 OF 2018 (KLR-LG)
BETWEEN:
1. SEETHARAMAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY LR.
1(a). SRI. MANJESH K.S.
S/O SEETHARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
2. SRI. GOVINDAPPA
S/O LATE THIMMAHANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
3. LAKSHMAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY LR
3(a). SRI. KIRAN L.
S/O LAKSHMINARASIMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.
Digitally signed by 4. SRI. RAMANJINAPPA K.V.
SHARMA ANAND S/O LATE VENKATAHANUMAIAH
CHAYA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 5. SRI. SRINIVAS K.V.
S/O LATE VENKATAHANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT:
KADARANHALLI VILLAGE,
LAKSHMIPURA POST,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH - 562 123.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:26180
WP No. 30695 of 2018
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE SPL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. TAHASILDAR
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. SIDDAGANGA MUTT
REP. BY SIDDALINGASWAMYJI
TUMAKURU - 572 104.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W
SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. PRABHULING NAVADGI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SANJEEVINI P. NAVADGI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 18TH AUGUST,
2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H
AND ORDER DATED 27TH APRIL, 2018 PASSED IN APPEAL
NO.897/2011 (REVENUE) ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU; DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 TO CONCLUDE THE PROCEEDINGS BY
ISSUANCE OF SAGUVALI CHIT PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:26180
WP No. 30695 of 2018
HC-KAR
THE RESPONDENT NO.4-TAHSILDAR DATED 31ST JULY, 1982
VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY,
E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
CAV ORDER
In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the Official
Memorandum dated 18th August, 2010 (Annexure-H) issued by
the respondent No.2 and order dated 27th April, 2018
(Annexure-K) passed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal
No.897/2011 (Revenue); inter alia sought for a direction to
respondents 1 to 4 to issue Saguvali Chit in favour of
petitioners in respect of the land in question as per order dated
31st July, 1982 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.4-
Tahsildar.
2. The brief facts for adjudication of this writ petition
as averred in the petition are that the petitioners claim to be
the grantees of the land bearing Survey No.41 of Kadaranahalli
Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. The
petitioners have made an application, seeking grant of land and
based on the said application, the respondent No.2-Special
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:26180
WP No. 30695 of 2018
HC-KAR
Deputy Commissioner in proceedings No.LND(1)RHM.
PR.1020/81-82 had proposed for grant of the land in favour of
the petitioners and thereafter, the respondent No.4-Tahsildar,
in proceedings No.LND.CR.374/81-82, had granted 3 acres of
land each to the petitioners and same was communicated to
the respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner as per letter
dated 31st July, 1982 (Annexure-A). Pursuant to the same,
survey sketch was prepared as per Annexure-B. It is further
stated that the petitioners belongs to Adi Karnataka community
and as such, though the upset price was fixed at Rs.1,000/- per
acre, the grant was made waiving payment of upset price from
the applicants. It is also stated that the land in question was
subjected to auction as per the Notification dated 02nd April,
2007 issued by the respondent No.2, however, the said
auction was not concluded on the ground that the land in
question was granted in favour of the petitioners.
3. It is further averred in the petition that the
respondent No.5-Mutt had made an application seeking
allotment of land for the purpose of establishment of Dasoha -
Prasada Distribution Centre and the Government without
considering the grant made in favour of petitioners, had
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:26180
WP No. 30695 of 2018
HC-KAR
granted land to the respondent No.5-Mutt to an extent of 14
acre 25 guntas as per Government Order dated 27th May, 2010
(Annexure-F) and pursuant to same, the Official Memorandum
dated 18th August, 2010 (Annexure-H) came to be issued by
the respondent No.2. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners
have approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal
No.897/2011 (Revenue), challenging the Official Memorandum
dated 18th August, 2010 (Annexure-H) issued by the
respondent No.2, granting 14 acre 25 guntas in Survey No.41
of Kadaranahalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North
Taluk to the respondent No.5-Mutt. The Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal, after considering the material on record, by its order
dated 27th April, 2018 (Annexure-K), dismissed the appeal
preferred by the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same,
petitioners presented this writ petition.
4. Heard Sri. Bipin Hegde, learned counsel along with
Sri. Bharath Kumar V., appearing for petitioners; Sri. Reuben
Jacob, learned Additional Advocate General along with Smt.
Savithramma, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for respondents 1 to 4; and Sri. Prabhuling Navadgi,
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:26180
WP No. 30695 of 2018
HC-KAR
learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Smt. Sanjeevini P.
Navadgi, appearing for the respondent No.5-Mutt.
5. Sri. Bipin Hegde, learned counsel appearing for
petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the letter dated
31st July, 1982 (Annexure-A) addressed by the respondent
No.4 to the respondent No.3 with regard to grant of land in
favour of the applicants mentioned in the said letter and
submitted that the said report was made along with the
Dharkasth records build-up as per the direction of the
respondent No.2 as the applicants were belonging to Adi
Karnataka community. He further argued that the land in
question is surrounded by Hiduvali lands and not convenient for
pasturing and that apart the upset price was fixed at
Rs.1,000/- per acre and same was waived insofar as applicants
belonged to Adi Karnataka community. He also referred to
Official Memorandum dated 11th October, 1982 (Annexure-L)
and submitted that, as per the said official memorandum, the
land in question has been granted in favour of the petitioners.
He also contended that the upset price has been paid by the
respective applicants as per Annexure-M series and further the
name of the applicants found place in the Register of Dharkasth
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:26180
WP No. 30695 of 2018
HC-KAR
lands for cultivation, which makes it clear that the land has
been granted in favour of the petitioners.
6. Learned counsel Sri. Bipin Hegde, appearing for
petitioners also referred to the affidavit dated 03rd March, 2025
filed by the Tahsildar, office of the Regional Commissioner,
Bengaluru Division, Bengaluru and affidavit dated 03rd March,
2025 filed by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru
and contended that the records pertaining to the grant made in
favour of petitioners are found in the office of the Tahsildar,
Bengaluru North and as such, the RTC extracts stands in the
name of the petitioners insofar as the land in question and
therefore, the reasons assigned by the Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal in Appeal No.897/2011 (Revenue) that, there is no
evidence available to show with regard to the grant made in
favour of the petitioners is incorrect. By inviting the attention
of the Court to the applications filed by the petitioners for grant
of land, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted
that the petitioners have properly mentioned the extent of land,
though the survey number is wrongly mentioned as survey
number 42 and further contended that the entire records are
prepared and put-up by the respondent-Authorities.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:26180
WP No. 30695 of 2018
HC-KAR
Accordingly, he argued that the reasons assigned in the
impugned order dated 27th April, 2018 (Annexure-K) by the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.897/2011 (Revenue)
requires to be set-aside.
7. Insofar as the grant made in favour of the
respondent No.5-Mutt is concerned, Sri. Bipin Hegde, learned
counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that, there is no
impediment for the respondent-State to allot any other land
other than the land in question belonging to the petitioners and
accordingly, sought for quashing the Official Memorandum
dated 18th August, 2010 (Annexure-H) issued by the
respondent No.2. Insofar as the contentions raised by learned
counsel appearing for respondents, questioning the
genuineness of grant made in favour of petitioners as well as
the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory dated 12th May,
2025 are concerned, learned counsel appearing for petitioners
replied that the expert opinion of the Forensic Science
Laboratory is not conclusive and it is stated that the documents
relating to grant made in favour of the petitioners might have
been typed on the same Typewriter, and therefore, the said
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:26180
WP No. 30695 of 2018
HC-KAR
finding would not itself basis for rejecting the grant made in
favour of the petitioners.
8. He further contended that, in an identical
circumstances with regard to allotment of land in favour of
Adichunchanagiri Maha Samsthana Mutt, in Writ Petition
No.49958 of 2019 disposed of on 18th July, 2022, this Court,
set-aside the allotment made in favour of the Mutt, wherein the
land was granted in favour of the grantees under a particular
scheme. He further contended that the said order was
confirmed in Writ Appeal No.769 of 2022 decided on 18th
January, 2024 and therefore, he sought for interference of this
Court.
9. Per contra, Sri. Ruben Jacob, learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State sought to
justify the impugned order dated 27th April, 2018 (Annexure-K)
passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal
No.897/2011 (Revenue) and contended that the land in
question belongs to Government and at no point of time, land
in question was granted in favour of the petitioners. He further
contended that the documents referred to by the petitioners
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26180
WP No. 30695 of 2018
HC-KAR
are created to knock off the Government land in question. By
referring to the documents particularly the Official
Memorandum dated 11th October, 1982 (Annexure-L), learned
Additional Advocate General submits that the said document is
not signed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bengaluru Division
and the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District and
the same is created for the purpose of the case. He further
contended that the Kimmat receipts produced by the
petitioners are not found in the original records and therefore,
sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
10 It is further argued by learned Additional Advocate
General that Sl. No.48/81-82 mentioned in the register of
Dharkasth land for cultivation is not found in the original
records and therefore, pursuant to the direction issued by this
Court, the Regional Commissioner, Bengaluru Division has filed
affidavit dated 10th March, 2025 stating that steps have been
taken to secure assistance of the Forensic Science Laboratory
to ascertain the genuineness of the aforementioned documents.
It is the vehement argument of learned Additional Advocate
General that the grant upon which the petitioners are seeking
right in respect of the land in question is doubtful and as a
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26180
WP No. 30695 of 2018
HC-KAR
responsible Officer of the State, the Regional Commissioner
forwarded the documents to Forensic Science Laboratory for
expert opinion. Referring to the Forensic Science Laboratory
report, learned Additional Advocate General argued that the
entire grant records relying upon by the petitioners are said to
have been typed in a same Typewriter, which never happened
in the Government office and therefore document referred to by
the petitioners relating to grant are fabricated. By inviting the
attention of the Court to paragraph 9 of the impugned order
dated 27th April, 2018 (Annexure-K) passed by the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.897/2011 (Revenue), it is
argued by the learned Additional Advocate General that, no
records were produced before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal
to establish the grant made in their favour. He further
contended that the documents referred to by the petitioners
are relating to proposal made by the Government for grant of
land, however, same had not reached logical end in granting
the land in question in favour of the petitioners and as such, he
sought for interference of this Court.
11. Sri. Prabhuling Navadgi, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondent No.5-Mutt submitted that the land
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26180
WP No. 30695 of 2018
HC-KAR
in question has been allotted in favour of the respondent No.5-
Mutt for Dasoha Centre as per Official Memorandum dated 18th
August, 2010 (Annexure-H) and thereafter, Sale Deed dated
05th July, 2018 has been executed in favour of the respondent
No.5-Mutt and therefore, he contended that, as the land in
question is allotted in favour of the respondent No.5-Mutt, the
petitioners have no legal right to challenge the same. Placing
reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of SRI.
KUMARASWAMY J. vs. THE STATE OF KEARNATAKA AND
OTHERS made in Writ Petition No.20245 of 2010 disposed of
on 08th December, 2015, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the respondent No.5 contended that this Court in an identical
circumstances, considering the provisions contained under Rule
10(2) and 27 of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment)
Rules, 2007 upheld the allotment made in favour of the
respondent No.5-Mutt and therefore, sought for dismissal of the
petition.
12. In the light of the submission made by learned
counsel appearing for the parties, the following questions have
to be answered in this petition:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26180
WP No. 30695 of 2018
HC-KAR
1) Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant
of the land as per Official Memorandum dated
11th October, 1982 (Annexure-L)?
2) Whether the respondent-State is justified in
establishing that the documents produced by
the petitioners to substantiate the grant are
not genuine?
3) Whether the grant of land in favour of the
respondent No.5-Mutt as per Official
Memorandum dated 18th August, 2010
(Annexure-H) is justified in law?
4) What order?
13. On perusal of the writ papers would indicate that
the petitioners are belonged to Adi Karnataka community and
have made an application, seeking grant of land bearing Survey
No.42 of Kadaranahalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru
North Taluk as per Annexures 'R1' to 'R4' annexed to the
affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru. The respondent-Government had initiated grant of
Survey No.41 of Kadaranahalli Village in favour of five persons
and the records have been built up as per the letter dated 31st
July, 1982 (Annexure-A). On careful examination of the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26180
WP No. 30695 of 2018
HC-KAR
Annexure-A would indicate that the land bearing Survey No.41
is not reserved for any other specific purpose and no 'Maliki'
and further the survey report would indicate that the land is
surrounded by Hiduvali lands and upset price was fixed at
Rs.1,000/- per acre and payment of the upset price was waived
insofar as the grantees, who belonged to Adi Karnataka
community. The sketch pertaining to demarcation of the land in
favour of the petitioners has been prepared at Annexure-B. It
is forthcoming that the proceedings have been made in LND
SR(4)126/81-82 to confirm the grant of land in favour of the
petitioners. It is also forthcoming from the Official
Memorandum dated 15th November, 1982 that the permission is
granted under Rule 97(4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Rules, 1966 to reduce the available extent of Gomal Land by 16
acres in Survey No.41 of Kadaranahalli Village and same has
been signed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bengaluru
Division. It is also forthcoming from the writ papers that as per
Official Memorandum dated 11th October, 1982 (Annexure-L), 4
acres of land has been granted in favour of B.R.
Narasimhamurthy and the land to an extent of 3 acres each has
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26180
WP No. 30695 of 2018
HC-KAR
been granted in favour of Lakshmamma, Govindappa,
Seetharamaiah and Venkatahanumaiah.
14. In the Official Memorandum dated 11th October, 1982
(Annexure-L), conditions have been stipulated and signature of
the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District is found.
It is also forthcoming from the letter dated 23rd August, 1982
addressed by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-
Division to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District
that the sanction is accorded for reduction of gomal land to an
extent of 16 acres under Section 97(4) of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Rules, 1966. On perusal of the writ papers, it would
indicate that the applicant/petitioners herein have paid upset
price in respect of the subject land, despite the same was
waived insofar as Adi Karnataka community is concerned.
Finally, Official Memorandum dated 11th October, 1982
(Annexure-L) has been issued by the respondent No.2-Special
Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District and accordingly,
granted the subject land in favour of the petitioners, with
certain conditions to be fulfilled. I have perused the Register of
the Dharkasth lands for cultivation produced at Annexure-N,
wherein, the said document stipulates two grants namely
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26180
WP No. 30695 of 2018
HC-KAR
47/81-82 and 48/81-82. The grant No.48/81-82 mentioned
about the names of the applicant/petitioners herein insofar as
the subject land is concerned. The respondent-Government is
not disputing the Grant No.47/81-82, however questioning the
genuineness of the Grant No.48/81-82. On careful examination
of the official records produced by the Government particularly
the Register of Dharkasth (Annexure-N) establishes the fact
that the land in question has been granted in favour of
petitioners herein. In that view of the matter, I am of the view
that the State Government cannot be permitted to urge that
the Grant No.48/81-82 is fake and fraudulent. The affidavit of
the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk dated 03rd March, 2025
refers to the application filed by the applicant/petitioners
seeking grant of land and the letter dated 31st July, 1982
(Annexure-R5) addressed by the Tahsildar, Nelamangala Taluk
to the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-Division
refers to reduction of land and to grant the land in question
subject to payment of upset price, Mahazar, Appendix in
Revenue Form No.121 and Ahavalu Takte (Annexure-R7). In
the backdrop of these aspects, on careful examination of official
Memorandum dated 11th October, 1982 (Annexure-L) makes it
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26180
WP No. 30695 of 2018
HC-KAR
clear that the subject land has been granted in favour of the
petitioners.
15. Though the learned Additional Advocate General
refers to the affidavit filed by the Regional Commissioner,
Bengaluru Division, expressing doubt in respect of the
documents in the office of the Regional Commissioner, Deputy
Commissioner, and the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North and
Nelamangala Taluk and thereby, vehemently argued that the
documents referred to by the petitioners are created and
fabricated. In that aspect of the matter, the report of the
Forensic Science Laboratory makes it clear that, in the
documents referred to by the office of the Regional
Commissioner, the ink used in the documents is different and
further the typed text marked as 'D3' to 'D6' are typed with the
same Typewriter. It is also evident from the opinion that, no
adverse opinion has been given as to fabrication of the
document in respect of writings, signatures and
writings/signatures marked as D1, D2; E1 to E5; D7, D8, E6,
E7 and E8. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that
the respondent-State failed to establish that the documents
produced by the petitioners are fake and fabricated.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26180
WP No. 30695 of 2018
HC-KAR
16. It is also to be noted that the petitioners secured the
documents referred to above relating to the grant made in their
favour as certified copies from the office of the Tahsildar and
the Regional Commissioner, which makes it clear that these
documents were in the custody of the aforementioned offices.
In that view of the matter, finding recorded by Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal at paragraphs 9 and 10 in the impugned
order, is without basis and contrary to the documents produced
by the respondent-State through the affidavits filed by the
Tahsildar working at the office of the Deputy Commissioner,
Tahsildar working at the office of the Regional Commissioner,
Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk and further the averments in
the affidavit filed by the Regional Commissioner makes it clear
that, no documents have been produced before the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal and therefore, it is apt to arrive at a
conclusion that, miscarriage of justice has been caused to the
petitioners herein. Therefore, the points for consideration at
Sl.1 and 2 are in favour of the petitioners herein and as such,
the finding recorded by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at
Annexure-K requires to be set-aside.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26180
WP No. 30695 of 2018
HC-KAR
17. Insofar as the grant of land made in favour of the
respondent No.5-Mutt as per Official Memorandum dated 18th
August, 2010 (Annexure-H) is concerned, on perusal of the
averments in the writ papers and the arguments advanced by
the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is evident that
the land in question, as on today is vacant land. For the
reasons stated above, as to the fact that the Government has
granted the land in question in favour of the petitioners is
genuine and based on the original records, the petitioners have
established the grant made by the Government in their favour,
I am of the opinion that the official Memorandum dated 18Th
August, 2010 (Annexure-L), granting subject land in favour of
the respondent No.5-Mutt is to be set-aside, however, it is open
for the respondent-State to allot suitable land in favour of the
respondent No.5-Mutt in accordance with law, by following
procedure contemplated under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act
and relevant rules in lieu of the land in question as claimed by
the petitioners. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
1) Writ Petition is allowed;
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:26180 WP No. 30695 of 2018 HC-KAR
2) Official Memorandum dated 18th August, 2010 (Annexure-H) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District is hereby set-aside in respect of the subject land belonging to the petitioners as per the Official Memorandum dated 11th October, 1982 (Annexure-L);
3) Order dated 27th April, 2018 (Annexure-K) passed in Appeal No.897/2011 (Revenue) by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is hereby set- aside;
4) The respondent No.4 is directed to enter the name of petitioners in the revenue records in respect of the land in question forthwith and the respondent-State is directed to allot an alternative suitable land in favour of the respondent No.5-Mutt in view of quashing the official memorandum dated 18th August, 2010 (Annexure-H) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District.
SD/-
(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 82