Karnataka High Court
Smt. Rathnamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 September, 2025
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:36966
WP No. 429 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.429 OF 2021 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O. LATE NARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/A LAGUMENAHALLI VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 049.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI JAGADEESWARA N. R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY
Digitally signed by VIDHANA SOUDHA
JUANITA
THEJESWINI BENGALURU - 560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
URBAN DISTRICT
OFFICE SITUATED AT URBAN D. C. OFFICE
BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN
K. G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION
OFFICE SITUATED AT
KANDAYA BHAVANA, K. G. ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:36966
WP No. 429 of 2021
HC-KAR
4. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
K. R. PURAM
BENGALURU - 560 036.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANJUNATHA K., H.C.G.P.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE R-4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED
13.11.2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONTINUE THE
NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE RTC BY IMPLEMENTING THE
ORDERS OF THE R-3 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-M IN RESPECT
OF THE PROPERTY BEARING SY. NO.22 MEASURING TO AN
EXTENT OF 1 ACRE 22 GUNTAS SITUATED AT LAGUMENAHALLI
VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved of the highhanded action on the part of the revenue authorities in deleting the name of the petitioner from the revenue records and showing the name of the Government, 'Sarakari Gunduthopu' in the revenue records. -3-
NC: 2025:KHC:36966 WP No. 429 of 2021 HC-KAR
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted 1 acre 22 guntas of land in Survey No. 22 of Lagumenahalli Village, earlier Hosakote Taluk now Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk in the year 1978. Saguvali chit was issued on 18.12.1978 as found at Annexure 'B'. The name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records pursuant to the mutation order bearing No.MR.3/1978-
79. However, without any intimation to the petitioner, her name was removed from the revenue records and the words 'Sarkari Gunduthopu' was inserted in the RTC, somewhere in the year 1988-89.
3. Learned counsel submits that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.48540/2014 being aggrieved of such an action on the part of the revenue authorities. This Court however by order dated 25.11.2014 accepted the submission of the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner may be permitted to agitate her grievance before the statutory authority raising an appeal in the matter of change in the revenue entries. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.(BE)No.130/2018 seeking restoration of the mutation entry in the revenue -4- NC: 2025:KHC:36966 WP No. 429 of 2021 HC-KAR records. In the meanwhile, proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Prohibition of Land Grabbing Act in L.G.C.(G) No.1076/2017, before the Special Court. The Special Court passed an order on 15.03.2019 noticing the judgment and decree passed by the City Civil Court in favour of the petitioner in O.S. No.692/1991 and O.S.No.173/1991. The Land Grabbing Court having noticed the order of grant made in favour of the petitioner and the saguvali chit issued, came to a conclusion that the petitioner cannot be held to be in unlawful possession of the lands in question. Accordingly, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were dropped. This was noticed by the Assistant Commissioner in his order dated 23.10.2019 and accordingly while allowing the appeal, the Assistant Commissioner directed the mutation entry in M.R No.3/1978-79 to be lawfully restored in favour of the petitioner.
4. The learned HCGP submits while pointing out to the Affidavit filed by the then Tahsildar, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru East Taluk, on 02.02.2021, that the Tahsildar has filed a Revision petition before the Special Deputy Commissioner, in RRT (2)(E) C.R.No.3/2020-21. An endorsement has been issued by the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:36966 WP No. 429 of 2021 HC-KAR Tahsildar at Annexure 'R2' filed along with the Affidavit stating that in view of the pendency of the Revision Petition before the Special Deputy Commissioner, the representations given by the petitioner cannot be considered.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned HCGP and on perusing the petition papers, it is clear that at no point of time the grant made in favour of the petitioner has been challenged or questioned in a manner known to law. There being no challenge raised to the grant on the ground that the lands could not have been granted to the petitioner, since it is a 'gunduthopu' and the grant order not having been set aside in a manner known to law, it was impermissible for the revenue authorities to remove the name of the petitioner from the land records. Time and again this Court has held that the revenue authorities including the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are the custodians of the revenue records and they cannot abuse their powers to remove the names of the khatedars without authority of law. If there is a claim that a particular property is a Government property, then unless the competent authority declares so, the revenue entries cannot be mutated by the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:36966 WP No. 429 of 2021 HC-KAR authorities by using their powers conferred under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
6. This Court having found that the grant made in favour of the petitioner was never cancelled in a manner known to law, the subsequent steps taken by the revenue authorities to remove the name of the petitioner and enter the words 'sarkari gunduthopu' in the revenue records is wholly unjustified.
7. It is also necessary to notice the statement made by the Tahsildar in the Affidavit which was pointed out by the learned High Court Government Pleader. The Tahsildar has never said that a revision petition has been filed invoking Section 136(3) of the Act. What is referred to is RRT proceedings and it is not known as to how such RRT proceedings can be initiated to question an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
8. If the Assistant Commissioner has passed an order under Section 136(2) of the Act, a revision is permissible before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act. But that is not what has been done in the present case. At this juncture, learned HCGP points out to Annexure 'R1' filed along with Affidavit which is a notice issued by the Special Deputy -7- NC: 2025:KHC:36966 WP No. 429 of 2021 HC-KAR Commissioner to the petitioner. It is pointed out that Section 136(3) has been stated in the first paragraph of the notice. However, a Division Bench of this Court, in a Public Interest Litigation, in the case of Sri H.S.Doreswamy And Others Vs. State of Karnataka And Others in W.P.No.51551-52/2013, dated 26.08.2014 has held that the Special Deputy Commissioner, in the cadre of KAS is not the competent authority to consider a revision petition under Section 136(3) of the Act. Therefore, even if a revision petition is filed by the Tahsildar before the Special Deputy Commissioner, it would be without authority of law. At any rate, having regard to the fact that the grant made in favour of the petitioner has not been denied by the respondent-authorities and the same has not been set aside in a manner known to law, the proceedings initiated under the provisions of Chapter XI of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, be it under Section 136(2) or 136(3) is a futile exercise.
9. It is necessary to notice that under Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, which makes provision for regularization of certain lands which are in unauthorized occupation, the prohibition of grant of certain lands does not -8- NC: 2025:KHC:36966 WP No. 429 of 2021 HC-KAR include a 'gunduthopu', which are nothing but lands used for thrashing harvested crops. Similarly, in Rule 10 of the Karnataka Grant Rules, 1969, which places restriction on disposal of lands in certain cases, it does not include 'gunduthopu'. Therefore, it is highly illegal on the part of the Tahsildar to have removed the name of the petitioner from the RTC on the ground that the land in question being designated as 'gunduthopu', it could not have been granted to the petitioner. It is also noticeable that the Tahsildar had power to remove the name of the petitioner or make other entries without there being any order passed by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner under Chapter XI of the Act. It is another aspect that the grant made in favour of the petitioner was never cancelled in a manner known to law.
10. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The second respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and fourth respondent-Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, are directed to forthwith re-enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:36966 WP No. 429 of 2021 HC-KAR
11. 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 a copy of this order.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS) JUDGE JT/-
CT:VC