Karnataka High Court
Somascan Society vs Chinnavenkatamma on 3 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:50575-DB
WA No. 1794 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1794 OF 2014 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SOMASCAN SOCIETY
(A CHARITABLE SOCIETY REGISTERED
UNDER THE SOCIETIES
REGISTRATION ACT, 1860)
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT YUVA VIKAS
DHARMARAM COLLEGE POST
POST BOX NO.2923
BANGALORE-560029
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS
PRESIDENT MR.JOSEPH
THAMPI KAKUMANU
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S AJESH KUMAR &.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHINNAVENKATAMMA
W/O VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DEVASANDRA VILLAGE,
HARGADDE POST, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL 562106
2. MANJULA
W/O MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT TAVAREKERE
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE 560081
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:50575-DB
WA No. 1794 of 2014
HC-KAR
BOTH THE RESPONDENTS ARE
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
SRI. MANJUNATHMURTHY
S/O MADDURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
MULLUR COLONY,
KARMELLARAM POST,
BANGALORE-560035
3. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
BANGALORE.
BANGALORE CITY-560035.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
K.R.PURAM BANGALORE
BANGALORE CITY-560036.
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION
BANGALORE
BANGALORE CITY-560001
6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
NEAR CAUVERY DISTRICT,
NEAR CAUVERY BHAVAN,
BANGALORE-560001
BANGALORE CITY
7. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE REGION,
BMTC BUS STOP,
SHANTI NAGAR, BANGALORE
BANGALORE CITY-560027
8. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE CITY-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:50575-DB
WA No. 1794 of 2014
HC-KAR
(BY SRI. M.S.BYRE REDDY FOR C/R1 AND R2;
SRI. MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R3-R8;
SRI. H C SHIVARAMU., ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL RECORDS OF THE CASE
IN W.P. NO. 39809/2012 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
19/2/13 AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER DATED 4.7.2014 IN
THE WRIT PETITION 39809/2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE., AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
1. The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 19.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.39809/2012 filed by the respondents.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition.
3. The appellants have also challenged the order dated 04.07.2014 passed in I.A.Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 of 2013; I.A.Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of 2014 to recall the -4- NC: 2025:KHC:50575-DB WA No. 1794 of 2014 HC-KAR judgment and order dated 19.02.2023 as mentioned above.
4. The petitioners who filed the writ petition claim that they are the grantees of land in Survey No.44 of Mullur Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Before the grant was made in their favour, they were in possession of the said land which would be evident from the revenue records of 1967 to 1968 onwards. The petitioners name reflects in the revenue records. It is further stated that they were given this land finally by grant dated 17.11.1979. Though the grant was made for an upset price, the same was waived in full as per Rule 12 (4) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1977. The petitioners' father made the representation to issue Saguvali Chit. Father of the petitioners filed W.P.No.9797/2007, however, the said writ petition came to be dismissed reserving liberty to redress the grievance before the competent authority.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:50575-DB WA No. 1794 of 2014 HC-KAR
5. The father of the petitioners again made a representation, however, the same was not considered. One more petition bearing W.P.No.8550/2008 came to be filed. The said writ petition was allowed vide the judgment and order dated 20.06.2008 and a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the representations dated 12.10.2007 and 26.12.2007, within a period of six months. One more representation dated 07.08.2008 was made, however, same was not considered.
6. In the meantime, it appears that the Deputy Commissioner initiated suo motu proceedings for cancelling the grant.
7. A notice was issued to the original grantee. But, same was not served, as the allottee had died. Without service of notice, the order dated 26.08.2009 impugned in the present writ petition came to be passed, whereby the Tahsildar was directed to delete the entry in Column No.12(2) of the RTC and the Deputy Commissioner held -6- NC: 2025:KHC:50575-DB WA No. 1794 of 2014 HC-KAR that the documents such as, grant certificate and RTC were the created documents and sought to resume the granted land in favour of father of the petitioners.
8. The learned Single Judge having considered the submissions and the facts, was of the view that the suo motu proceedings for cancellation of the grant by the Deputy Commissioner were initiated with an ulterior motive. The cancellation was made by the Deputy Commissioner for which he had no power under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. It has been further held that once the grant was made, the grantee was entitled to Saguvali Chit which is the title document.
9. In the present case, the notice was not issued and the Deputy Commissioner in suo motu proceedings, exparte held that the documents relating to grant and the revenue records were created documents and cancelled the grant.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:50575-DB WA No. 1794 of 2014 HC-KAR
10. The learned Single Judge having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the record has allowed the writ petition vide impugned judgment and order. The Learned Single Judge has held that the Deputy Commissioner would have no power to cancel the grant under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The grant could be cancelled only by the competent authority by invoking the relevant provisions. Therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is completely illegal and without jurisdiction which requires to be set aside. The learned Single Judge had also held that the concerned Deputy Commissioner who cancelled the grant to be saddled with the cost of ₹10,000/- to be paid by him to the petitioners. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka has been directed to recover the cost from the concerned Deputy Commissioner who had passed the order and make the payment to the petitioners within a period of six weeks. The Tahsildar has been directed to issue Saguvali Chit to -8- NC: 2025:KHC:50575-DB WA No. 1794 of 2014 HC-KAR the petitioners within a period of four weeks and make report in respect of the same to the Court.
11. The appellants claim to be the allottees of the very same land which is the subject matter of the grant and some other lands besides the lands granted in favour of the father of the petitioners. We have asked learned counsel for the appellants regarding the application which he made for granting lease of the lands including the land granted in favour of the father of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that such an application is not on record as the appellants have not been able to lay their hands on such an application. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the grant and the revenue entries were forged and created documents.
12. This Court, vide order dated 12.06.2024 directed the forensic examination of the grant and the revenue entries. The Forensic Science Laboratory report has been -9- NC: 2025:KHC:50575-DB WA No. 1794 of 2014 HC-KAR submitted before this Court in the sealed cover. We have seen the report. The opinion of the Forensic Science Laboratory on these documents would read as under;
"PARA-1 My opinion is based on the following observations.
The admitted signatures and writings marked as 51 to 54; S7 (a), S7 (b) exhibit free & firm movements. in their executions, along with the smooth, precise, thythmic and uniform line quality of stroke formations. They show internal consistency in writing habits and possess natural variations between them without any difference in basic writing habits. They are found to be written by one and the same person in the usual form of executions.
The questioned signatures and writings marked as Q1 to Q7, Q11 (a), Q11 (b) are found freely and firmly written. The line quality of these signatures is smooth, precise, rhythmic and uniform. They show internal consistency in writing habits and possess natural variations between them without any differences in basic writing habits.
On examination of the admitted signatures and writings marked as S1 to S4; S7 (a), S7 (b) on one hand and the questioned signatures and writings marked as Q1 to Q7; Q11 (a), Q11 (b) on the other various similarities in individual writing habits in execution of characters are observed between them, such as: In signatures: nature of execution of signatures in individualistic manner, habit of execution of initial portion of signature with downward and upward retrace movement to form body curved portion, movement in formation of the subsequent character which appears like "a", inward movement of commencement, continuous movement to form the tail stroke, extended continuous
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50575-DB WA No. 1794 of 2014 HC-KAR movement to form the middle potion of the character in the form of wave; squiggly movement in formation of the terminal portion with downward twisted movement to form the underscore, similarly the manner of execution of the numerical in the dates executed below the signature such as "8", inward anticlockwise movement in execution of the body curved portion, continuous movement in formation of the second lobe of "8" with extended outward flying finish; manner of execution of "5" in two pen operation, execution of the body curved portion ion one operation, execution of the horizontal stroke at the ascender in other operation; manner of execution of "7", ticked movement of commencement, continuous movement in formation of the diagonal stroke, nature of body formation, placement, shape, size, execution etc., as observed in admitted signatures marked as S1 to S4 similarly observed in questioned signatures marked as Q1 to Q7 with similar freedom of movement, writing skill, rhythm and quality of strokes formation, slant and alignment between the above mentioned admitted and questioned signatures.
In Writings: nature of execution of the combination of letters "Sub: in one pen operation, execution of "S", relative size and shape of the body curved portions, continuous movement in execution of "u", peculiar manner of execution "b":, with open body curved portion and twisted movement at the upper body curved portion with extended finish outwards; manner of execution of "n" in the combination of letters "and", "land" in simplified form, with a downward pointed movement and connecting stroke to form the subsequent character "d"; execution of "d" with a tapering downward finish, manner of execution of "g" in the combination of letters "village" in simplified form with a loop at the ascender which continues to form a downward tapering stroke; manner of execution of "t", execution of the "t" stem I the form of compressed loop and execution of "t-bar" towards its right,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50575-DB WA No. 1794 of 2014 HC-KAR similarly manner of execution of S/o, Karnataka, from, for, Muni, enquiry, favour, S. No., Act, the, Report, of etc., with respect to nature and movement of their commencement, shape and movement in formation of strokes & letters, movement in combination and termination of strokes & letters as found in admitted writings marked as S7
(a), S7 (b) are found similar in questioned writings marked as Q11 (a), Q11 (b) along with similar freedom of movement, writing skill, rhythm and quality of strokes formation, movement in commencement, combination and termination of strokes & letters formation, slant and alignment between the above mentioned admitted and questioned writings.
In short, there is no divergence in writing habit is observed between the questioned signatures and writings marked as Q1 to Q7; Q11 (a), Q11 (b) and admitted signatures and writings marked as S1 το 54; S7 (a), S7 (b) except natural variations. The similarities in writing habits which observed in questioned signatures and writings marked as Q1 to Q7: Q11 (a), Q11 (b) with that of the admitted signatures and writings marked as S1 to S4; S7 (a), S7 (b) significant in nature and they will not accidentally coincide in writing habits of two different persons and when they are considered collectively, they are sufficient to express the positive authorship of the questioned signatures and writings marked as Q1 to Q7, Q11 (a), Q11 (b).
PARA-2: My opinion is based on the following observations.
The admitted signatures marked as S5, S6 exhibit free & firm movements in their executions, along with the smooth, precise, rhythmic and uniform line quality of stroke formations. They show internal consistency in writing habits and possess natural variations between them without any difference in basic writing habits. They are found to be written by
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50575-DB WA No. 1794 of 2014 HC-KAR one and the same person in the usual form of executions.
The questioned signatures marked as Q8 to Q10 are found freely and firmly written. The line quality of these signatures is smooth, precise, rhythmic and uniform. They show internal consistency in writing habits and possess natural variations between them without any differences in basic writing habits. On examination of the admitted signatures marked as 55, 56 on one hand and the questioned signatures marked as Q8 to Q10 on the other various similarities in individual writing habits in execution of characters are observed between them, such as manner of execution of the signatures in individualistic form; nature of execution of initial vertical stroke with ticked movement of finish, habit of execution of a impulse movement at the centre of the horizontal stroke, peak movement at the terminal portion of the signature; squiggly illegible movement at the terminal portion of signatures, continuous movement in formation of the underscore extended outwards, with respect to nature of body formation, placement, shape, size, execution etc., as observed in admitted signatures marked as S5, S6 similarly observed in questioned signature marked as Q8 to Q10 with similar freedom of movement, writing skill, rhythm and quality of strokes formation, slant and alignment between the above-mentioned signatures.
In short, there is no divergence in writing habit is observed between the questioned signatures are marked as Q8 to Q10 and admitted signatures marked as S5, S6 except natural variations. The similarities in writing habits which observed in questioned signatures are marked as Q8 to Q10 with that of the admitted signatures marked as S5, S6 significant in nature and they will not accidentally coincide in writing habits of two different persons and when they are considered collectively, it is sufficient
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50575-DB WA No. 1794 of 2014 HC-KAR to express that the admitted signatures marked as S13, S14 and the questioned signatures marked as Q18 to Q26 are written by one and the same person. PARA-3: My opinion is based on the following observations.
The admitted signatures marked as $13, S14 exhibit free & firm movements in their executions, along with the smooth, precise, rhythmic and uniform line quality of stroke formations. They show internal consistency in writing habits and possess natural variations between them without any difference in basic writing habits. They are found to be written by one and the same person in the usual form of executions.
The questioned signatures marked as Q18 to Q26 are found freely and firmly written. The line quality of these signatures is smooth, precise, rhythmic and uniform. They show internal consistency in writing habits and possess natural variations between them without any differences in basic writing habits. On examination of the admitted signatures marked as S13, S14 on one hand and the questioned signatures marked as Q18 to Q26 on the other various similarities in individual writing habits in execution of characters are observed between them, such as: manner of execution of the signatures in individualistic form, nature of execution of the curved initial vertical stroke, inward and continuous movement to form a compound curve which corms a loop at the descended; illegible movement in execution of the middle portion with a encompassing curve which appears like "S", relative size and shape of the body curved portion appears to be like "S", which continues to form a twisted movement and a underscore; nature of place and location of the dot and underscore, similarly the manner of execution of the numerical in the dates executed below the signature such as: manner of execution of
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50575-DB WA No. 1794 of 2014 HC-KAR combination of numbers "78" in one pen operation, curved movement of commencement, movement in formation of the body stroke, continuous movement in formation of the subsequent number "8" with tapered outward finish; of execution of combination of with respect to nature of body formation, placement, shape, size, execution etc., as observed in admitted signatures marked as $13, 514 similarly observed in questioned signature marked as Q18 to Q26 with similar freedom of movement, writing skill, rhythm and quality of strokes formation, slant and alignment between the above-mentioned signatures. In short, there is no divergence in writing habit is observed between the questioned signatures are marked as Q18 to Q26 and admitted signatures marked as S13, S14 except natural variations. The similarities in writing habits which observed in questioned signatures are marked as Q18 to Q26 with that of the admitted signatures marked as S13, S14 significant in nature and they will not accidentally coincide in writing habits of two different persons and when they are considered collectively, it is sufficient to express that the admitted signatures marked as S13, S14 and the questioned signatures marked as Q18 to Q26 are written by one and the same person.
PARA-4: My opinion is based on the following observations.
The admitted signature marked as S15 exhibit free & firm movements in their executions, along with the smooth, precise, rhythmic and uniform line quality of stroke formations.
The questioned signatures marked as Q27 to Q29 are found freely and firmly written. The line quality of these signatures is smooth, precise, rhythmic and uniform. They show internal consistency in writing habits and possess natural variations between them without any differences in basic writing habits.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50575-DB WA No. 1794 of 2014 HC-KAR On examination of the admitted signature marked as S15 on one hand and the questioned signatures marked as Q27 to Q29 on the other various similarities in individual writing habits in execution of characters are observed between them, such as:
nature of execution of the signature in individualistic form, inward movement of commencement in the form of hook, continuous curvy movement to form the upper stroke with a bifurcation at the juncture and twisted movement the baseline to form a loop which raises upwards and downwards with a retrace movement; continuous movement to form the middle portion of the signatures in the form of garlands, execution of the terminal stroke in the form of "S", formation of a eye at the descender, continuous movement to form the body curved portion and the underscore with a backwards and forward movement of stroke, with respect to nature of body formation, placement, shape, size, execution etc., as observed in admitted signature marked as S15 similarly observed in questioned signature marked as Q27 to Q29 with similar freedom of movement, writing skill, rhythm and quality of strokes formation, slant and alignment between the above-mentioned signatures.
In short, there is no divergence in writing habit is observed between the questioned signatures are marked as Q27 to Q29 and admitted signature marked as S15 except natural variations. The similarities in writing habits which observed in questioned signatures are marked as Q27 to Q29 with that of the admitted signature marked as $15 significant in nature and they will not accidentally coincide in writing habits of two different persons and when they are considered collectively, it is sufficient to express that the admitted signatures marked as S15 and the questioned signatures marked as Q27 to Q29 are written by one and the same person.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50575-DB WA No. 1794 of 2014 HC-KAR PARA-5: My opinion is based on the following observations.
My opinion on questioned seal impressions marked as Q12 to Q15 and the admitted seal impressions marked as S8 to $10 are one and the same is based on the similarities observed between them in shape, size, border and design of characters and their composition. On superimposition of questioned seal impressions marked as Q12 to Q15 with the admitted seal impressions marked as S8 to $10, they superimpose in with one another.
PARA-6: My opinion is based on the following observations.
My opinion on questioned seal impressions marked as Q16, Q17 and the admitted seal impressions marked as S11, S12 are different with one another is based on the differences observed between them in shape, size and design of characters and their composition. On superimposition of questioned seal impressions marked Q16, Q17 with the admitted seal impressions marked as S11, S12, they do not superimpose with one another.
PARA-7: My opinion is based on the following observations.
Age of document sheets and ink (writing, signatures, seal impressions & typed text) marked as D1 to D3 could not be determined, since reliable techniques/methods are not available."
13. Thus, the stand taken by the Deputy Commissioner that the grant and the entries in the revenue record were forged, has been comprehensively negated in the Forensic Science Laboratory report dated 14.02.2025.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50575-DB WA No. 1794 of 2014 HC-KAR
14. The entire substratum of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner cancelling the grant does not exist in view of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory on the grant and revenue entries extracted hereinabove.
15. The appellant who claims the right on the basis of lease deed of the property was not a necessary party sofar as the cancellation of grant by the Deputy Commissioner is concerned. The appellant has no right to intervene in the proceedings initiated by the petitioners challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner cancelling the grant in their favour. The learned Single Judge has therefore rightly rejected the application filed by the appellant to recall the impugned judgment and order dated 19.02.2013.
16. We are therefore, of the opinion that the Deputy Commissioner's order has been rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge and the impugned judgment does not require any interference by this Court.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:50575-DB WA No. 1794 of 2014 HC-KAR
17. If the appellant wants to assert any right on the basis of the lease, the Public Law remedy is not an appropriate remedy and the appellant must resort to the Civil Law remedy as may be available to him for asserting his right over the land on the basis of the lease. However, the Public Law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be available to him and thus, we dismiss this appeal.
18. The original record produced today by Mr.Mohammad Jaffar Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate is returned back to him for the purpose of Department. Digitally signed by DINESH KUMAR SINGH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(D K SINGH) JUDGE Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12