Karnataka High Court
Smt Chikkaeramma vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:33094
WP No. 25171 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 25171 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT CHIKKAERAMMA
W/O LATE SIDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
2. SHRI YOGESH
S/O LATE SIDDE GOWDA
A/A 50 YEARS,
OCC AGRICUTURE.
3. SHRI KRISHNA
S/O LATE SIDDE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
4. SMT RUKMINI
D/O LATE SIDDE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
Digitally signed by
SHARMA ANAND
CHAYA 5. SMT SUNANDA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF D/O LATE SIDDE GOWDA,
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT LINGADEVARA KOPPALU,
ILAWALA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK,
MYSORE-571130.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G A SRIKANTE GOWDA.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:33094
WP No. 25171 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE,
VIKASASOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT,
MYSURU -570005.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MYSORE SUB DIVISION,
MYSORE TALUK AND
DISTRICT-570005.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
MYSORE TALUK AND
DISTRICT-570005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.A.SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DTD 25.6.2024 (ANNX-S) PASSED BY THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (R-2) IN RP NO. 28/2022 AND DIRECT THE
TAHSILDAR TO MAKE COMPUTER ENTRIES IN THE NAME OF
THE PETITIONER AS PER THE ORDER DTD 20.12.2017 PASSED
BY THE ASST COMMISSIONER (ANNX-H) WITH RESPECT TO
LAND IN SY NO. 136.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:33094
WP No. 25171 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 25.06.2025 (Annexure-S) in RP No.28/2022 on the file of the respondent No.2 interalia sought for a direction to the respondent No.4 to enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records in terms of the order dated 20.12.2017 (Annexure-H) passed by the respondent No.3 in respect of 2 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.136 in Block `B' situated at Koorgalli village, Ilawala Hobli, Mysuru Taluk (hereinafter referred to as `subject land').
2. It is the case of the petitioners that, the subject land was granted to the grandfather of petitioners No.2 to 5 - late Nanjegowda @ Masnegowda as per the Grant Certificate dated 28.05.1973 (Annexure-A). It is stated that the revenue entries mutated in the name of the grandfather of the petitioners No.2 to 5 as per MR No.30/1978-79, and the same is produced at Annexures-B and B1 respectively. It is further stated that after the demise of the grandfather of the petitioners No.2 to 5, the revenue entries were transferred to the name of the husband of the petitioner No.1, and the father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 - Siddegowda as per I.H.R -4- NC: 2025:KHC:33094 WP No. 25171 of 2024 HC-KAR No.4/1991-92. Pursuant to the same, the name of the father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 was entered in the revenue records as per Annexures-C, C1 and C2 respectively. It is further stated that after the computerization of record of rights, the name of the father of petitioners No.2 to 5 - Siddegowda was not entered in the computerized RTC extracts, and therefore, the petitioners have approached the Revenue Authority requesting to enter the name of the father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 - Siddegowda in the revenue records.
3. It is also stated that the notification dated 02.12.2016 (Annexures-F and F1 respectively) was issued by the respondent No.4 stating about the genuineness of the grant made in favour of the grandfather of petitioners No.2 to 5. The petitioners have also produced a document dated 20.12.2017 (Annexure-H), wherein the respondent No.3 has issued a notification to enter the name of the father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 - Siddegowda in the revenue records since the subject land has been granted in favour of the grandfather of the petitioners No.2 to 5 in the computerized RTC extract. In the meanwhile, the petitioners have approached this Court in WP No.13931/2021 seeking a direction to the respondents to -5- NC: 2025:KHC:33094 WP No. 25171 of 2024 HC-KAR enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records, and this Court vide order dated 18.08.2021 (Annexure-M), directed the respondent - Authorities to consider the grievance of the petitioners as per representation dated 08.03.2021. It appears that the respondents have not taken any decision in the matter, and as such, the petitioners have filed CCC No.41/2022 before this Court for compliance of the order dated 18.08.2021 passed in WP No.13931/2021. The respondent - Authorities therein have filed a compliance report at Annexure-R1 in the above proceedings, and the Contempt Court by its order dated 6th September, 2022, disposed of the contempt petition. During pendency of the contempt petition, the respondent No.2 has initiated revisional jurisdiction under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 against the petitioners herein stating that the subject land is a forest land, and therefore, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order at Annexure-S stating that, the land in question belongs to the Forest Department.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order at Annexure-S, the petitioners have presented this petition. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:33094 WP No. 25171 of 2024 HC-KAR
5. Heard Sri G.A.Srikante Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri C S Pradeep, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of Smt.Hemalatha V, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
6. Sri G.A.Srikante Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the subject land bearing Sy.No.136 to an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas in Block `B' of Koorgalli village, Ilawala Hobli, Mysuru Taluk was granted in favour of the grandfather of the petitioners No.2 to 5 as per Annexures-A and A1 respectively. It is also argued that since the subject land was granted in upset price, the requisite kimmat was paid as per Annexure-A1. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by referring to RTC extract (Annexure-C series) wherein the name of the grandfather of petitioners No.2 to 5 - Nanjegowda @ Masnegowda has been reflected. It is also contended that after the demise of the grandfather of petitioners No.2 to 5, the land in question was inherited by the father of petitioners No.2 to 5
- Siddegowda, and thereafter, the name of the father of petitioners No.2 to 5 was reflected in the revenue records. The -7- NC: 2025:KHC:33094 WP No. 25171 of 2024 HC-KAR father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 - Siddegowda died on 29.05.2021 as per the death certificate (Annexure-K), and thereafter, the name of the petitioners was not reflected in the revenue records as per the computerization of RTC extract taken by the Government, and as such, the petitioners filed WP No.13931/2021, and this Court vide order dated 18.08.2021 directed the Revenue Authorities to consider the grievance of the petitioners.
7. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, by referring to the proceedings in CCC No.41/2022, wherein the respondent - Authorities have initiated the proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the respondent No.2 by impugned order (Annexure-S) has arrived at the conclusion that the land in question is a forest land, and the said finding recorded by the respondent No.2 is without any basis or records, and as such, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the land in question has been granted in favour of the grandfather of the petitioners No.2 to 5 and no records were produced with regard to substantiate the fact that the land in -8- NC: 2025:KHC:33094 WP No. 25171 of 2024 HC-KAR question is a forest land, and therefore, sought for interference by this Court.
8. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the finding recorded by the respondent No.2 that the land in question belongs to the Forest Department, and the grant of the land has been made without considering the same. The said finding recorded by the respondent No.2 requires to be set aside as no records have been produced to establish the same and as such sought for interference in this petition.
9. Per contra, Sri C.S. Pradeep, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents - State reiterates the averments made in the statement of objections, and contended that, as per Government Order dated 21.07.2012 (Annexure-R2) enclosed with the statement of objections, shows that the land bearing Sy.No.136 is a Neduthopu, belonged to the Forest Department, and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition. It is also argued by the learned Additional Advocate General by referring to the notification dated 25.02.1899 filed along with the statement of -9- NC: 2025:KHC:33094 WP No. 25171 of 2024 HC-KAR objections, that the land in question is situated within the forest land, and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.
10. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, on careful examination of the papers would indicate that, the land bearing Sy.No.136 in Block `B' to an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas situated at Koorgalli village, Ilawala Hobli, Mysuru Taluk was granted in favour of one Nanjegowda @ Masnegowda (grandfather of petitioners No.2 to
5). It is also stated that the land in question has been granted for an upset price, and accordingly, the kimmath was paid as per Annexure-A1 and the name of grandfather of petitioners No.2 to 5 - Nanjegowda was reflected in the record of rights as per Annexures-B and C series respectively. After the demise of the grandfather of petitioners No.2 to 5, the computerized RTC extract shows the name of the father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 - Siddegowda as per Annexures-C1 and C2 respectively. The said aspect makes it clear that the subject land is in cultivation by the grandfather and father of petitioners No.2 to 5. In the meanwhile, the father of the petitioners No.2 and 5 made an application to the respondent - Authorities to enter his name in
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33094 WP No. 25171 of 2024 HC-KAR the revenue records on account of deletion of the name of the father of the petitioners No.2 to 5 in the computerized RTC extract. It is also forthcoming from the notification dated 02.12.2016 (Annexure-F), wherein the genuineness of the grant made in favour of the grandfather of petitioners No.2 to 5 is found in the revenue records. The sketch has also been produced accordingly as prepared by the respondent - Authorities and the said aspect would substantiate the grant made in favour of the grandfather of petitioners No.2 to 5.
11. The respondent No.3 has issued a notification dated 20.12.2017 (Annexure-H), stating about the grant of the subject land made in favour of the grandfather of the petitioners No.2 to 5, and therefore, directed the Revenue Authorities to enter the name of the father of petitioners No.2 to 5 - Siddegowda in the revenue records. In the meanwhile, as the grievance of the petitioners was not considered by the respondent -Authorities, the petitioners have approached this Court in WP No.13931/2021, and this Court vide order dated 18.08.2021 (Annexure-M) directed the respondent - Authorities to consider the representation made by the petitioners for
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33094 WP No. 25171 of 2024 HC-KAR entering their name in the revenue records. Since the order passed by this Court was not complied with by the respondent - Authorities, the petitioners have filed CCC No.41/2022 before this Court. In the meanwhile, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioners under Section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 by the respondent No.3 as per the letter addressed by the respondent No.4, produced at Annexure-R2 in the compliance affidavit filed by the respondent No.4 in CCC No.41/2022. In terms of the same, this Court closed the contempt proceedings.
12. The respondent No.2, has registered RP No.28/2022 under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 by exercising suo-moto proceedings and passed the impugned order (Annexure-S) holding that, the land in question belongs to the Forest Department, and interference with respect to the grant made in favour of the grandfather of petitioners No.2 to 5 has been affected adversely.
13. On careful examination of the material on record would indicate that there is no dispute with regard to the grant made in favour of the grandfather of petitioners No.2 to 5. It is
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33094 WP No. 25171 of 2024 HC-KAR the contention of the respondent - Government that the land bearing Sy.No.136 is a forest land. On careful examination of the government order dated 21.07.2022 produced by the respondents - Government along with the statement of objection, wherein it is stated that the land bearing Sy.No.137 to an extent of 113.21 acres of Koorgahalli village is belonged to the Forest Department. However, the land bearing Sy.No.136 in Block `B' situated at Koorgalli village, Ilawala Hobli, Mysuru Taluk and the land bearing Sy.Nos.38, 37 of Bastipura village and land bearing Sy.No.15 of Maidanahalli are the gomal lands and not forest lands. However, the Forest Department have shown the said lands as Neduthopu. In that view of the matter, the respondents have failed to produce the relevant documents to show that the land bearing Sy.No.136 to an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas is a forest land. It is also forthcoming from the records appended to the statement of objection, wherein the land bearing Sy.No.137 of Koorgalli village has been shown as land belonging to the Forest Department, however, no such similar document has been produced to demonstrate that the land bearing Sy.No.136 of Koorgahalli village belongs to the Forest Department. Hence, I
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33094 WP No. 25171 of 2024 HC-KAR find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is also forthcoming from the Government Order dated 25.02.1899, wherein the land bearing Sy.No.136 is not shown as the land belongs to the Forest Department.
14. At this stage, it is also relevant to cite the judgment of this Court in WP No.3963/2018 (DD 11.03.2020), wherein this Court had an occasion to observe that the Revenue Authorities have no authority under law to initiate suo-motu proceedings in respect of the land already granted in favour of the person after inordinate delay of three to four decades, and in this regard, it is relevant to extract paragraphs No.17 to 20 as under:
"17. It is well settled that if there is no limitation prescribed under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act, the authorities would initiate the proceedings within a reasonable time as held by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again. My view is also fortified by the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District & another Vs. D.Narsing Rao & others (cited supra), wherein at paragraphs-11, 24 and 25 it has been observed as under: -
"11. No time limit is prescribed in the above Regulation for the exercise of suo motu power but the question is as to whether the suo motu power could be exercised after a period of 50 years. The Government as early as in the year 1991 passed order reserving 477 acres of land in Survey Nos.36 and 37 of Gopanpally village
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33094 WP No. 25171 of 2024 HC-KAR for house-sites to the Government employees. In other words the Government had every occasion to verify the revenue entries pertaining to the said lands while passing the Government Order dated 24.9.1991 but no exception was taken to the entries found. Further the respondents herein filed Writ Petition No.21719 of 1997 challenging the Government order dated 24.9.1991 and even at that point of time no action was initiated pertaining to the entries in the said survey numbers. Thereafter, the purchasers of land from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein filed a civil suit in O.S.No. 12 of 2001 on the file of Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District praying for a declaration that they were lawful owners and possessors of certain plots of land in survey No.36, and after contest, the suit was decreed and said decree is allowed to become final. By the impugned Notice dated 31.12.2004 the suo motu revision power under Regulation 166B referred above is sought to be exercised after five decades and if it is allowed to do so it would lead to anomalous position leading to uncertainty and complications seriously affecting the rights of the parties over immovable properties."
"24. To sum up, 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 uncertainty 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 extent 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.
25. In the case at hand, while the entry sought to be corrected is described as fraudulent, there is nothing in the notice impugned
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33094 WP No. 25171 of 2024 HC-KAR before the High Court as to when was the alleged fraud discovered by the State. A specific statement in that regard was essential for it was a jurisdictional fact, which ought to be clearly asserted in the notice issued to the respondents. The attempt of the appellant-State to demonstrate that the notice was issued within a reasonable period of the discovery of the alleged fraud is, therefore futile. At any rate, when the Government allowed the land in question for housing sites to be given to Government employees in the year 1991, it must be presumed to have known about the record and the revenue entries concerning the parcel of land made in the ordinary course of official business. In as much as, the notice was issued as late as on 31st December, 2004, it was delayed by nearly 13 years. explanation has been offered even for this delay assuming that the same ought to be counted only from the year 1991. Judged from any angle the notice seeking to reverse the entries made half a century ago, was clearly beyond reasonable time and was rightly quashed."
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering an identical issue in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav Vs. Hari Kishore Yadav, reported in (2018) 12 SCC 527 has held that where the statute does not provide for period of limitation for exercising the power, such power has to be exercised by the authority suo moto or even while dealing with beneficial legislations, rights accrued by third persons cannot be ignored lightly where no period of limitation prescribed and actions initiated after delay and at paragraphs-9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 it has been held as under:-otherwise within a reasonable time-even while dealing with beneficial legislations, rights accrued by third persons cannot be ignored lightly where no period of limitation prescribed and actions initiated after delay and at paragraphs-9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 it has been held as under:
"9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently submitted that the delay must be overlooked because the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to bring relief to farmers who had been dispossessed during the proscribed period. The reliance was placed on a judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. Padma [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. Padma, (2003) 7 SCC 713: 2003 SCC (Cri) 1709], where this
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33094 WP No. 25171 of 2024 HC-KAR Court held that in a motor accident which took place on 18-12- 1989, a claim petition barred by time but filed on 2-11-1995, after limitation itself was removed from the statute was maintainable. This Court held that there could be no resort to Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 even though no period of limitation was prescribed. Accordingly, the Court held that the claim petition could not be rejected at the threshold on the ground of limitation, after the deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which had provided a period of six months. This view was taken having regard to the purpose of the statute. We, however, find that the judgment relied on has no application to the present case. It is a settled law where the statute does not provide for a period of limitation, the provisions of the statute must be invoked within a reasonable time.
10. In Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edn., "reasonable time" is explained as follows:
"That is a reasonable time that preserves to each party the rights and advantages he possesses and protects each party from losses that he ought not to suffer."
Thus, time must be reckoned reasonably, not only in order to preserve rights and advantages a party possesses, but equally to protect each party from the losses he ought not to suffer. Thus, whether an action has been taken within a reasonable time, must also be viewed from the point of view of the party who might suffer losses.
11. In the instant case, we find that the High Court had observed as follows:
"The auction-sale took place in 1942, the application for restoration of the lands was first made in 1975 and the appeal from it was dismissed for default in 1983. In the meanwhile, the disputed lands changed hands twice and were in the possession of the appellant-writ petitioners from 1962 and 1986. Such a long-settled position could only be upset for some very compelling reasons and making out an extremely strong case for restoration of the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33094 WP No. 25171 of 2024 HC-KAR remotely like that. Secondly, the action of the Additional Collector in restoring the appeal even without any notice to the appellant-writ petitioners was clearly illegal and in contravention of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act."
The High Court was clearly right in the view it had taken.
12. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that power of the Additional Collector for restoration of lands could have been exercised suo motu and since no limitation was prescribed for exercise of such power, the delay in this case may be overlooked. This submission presupposes that where the power can be exercised suo motu, such exercise may be undertaken at any time. The submission is directly contrary to a decision of this Court in Collector v. D. Narsing Rao [Collector v. D. Narsing Rao, (2015) 3 SCC 695: (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 396] where this Court affirmed the view [Collector v. D. Narasing Rao, 2010 SCC Online AP 406 (2010) 6 ALD 748] of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Para '17' of the judgment reads as follows: (D. Narsing Rao case [Collector v. D. Narsing Rao, (2015) 3 SCC 695: (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 396], SCC p. 706, para 17) "17.... that the suo motu revision undertaken after a long lapse of time, even in the absence of any period of limitation was arbitrary and opposed to the concept of rule of law."
Thus, we have no hesitation in rejecting this contention.
13. In our view, where no period of limitation is prescribed, the action must be taken, whether suo motu or on the application of the parties, within a reasonable time. Undoubtedly, what is reasonable time would depend on the circumstances of each case and the purpose of the statute. In the case before us, we are clear that the action is grossly delayed and taken beyond reasonable time, particularly, in view of the fact that the land was transferred several times during this period, obviously, in the faith that it is not encumbered by any rights.
14. We are of the view that merely because the legislation is beneficial and no limitation is prescribed, the rights acquired by persons cannot be ignored lightly and proceedings cannot be
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33094 WP No. 25171 of 2024 HC-KAR initiated after unreasonable delay as observed by this Court in Situ Sahu v. State of Jharkhand [Situ Sahu v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 8 SCC 340].
19. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are claiming their right by virthe of the order dated 30.7.1975 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner of Abolition of Inams under the provisions of Section 6A of Inams Abolition Act. When the said order dated 30.7.1975 has reached finality, by way of the provisions under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act, the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, Bengaluru by the impugned order dated 31.8.2015 cannot deprive the right of the petitioners' father in respect of the land in question, which is impermissible. The authorities under different enactments under Government are under constitutional duty coupled with power. Every public servant is a trustee of the society and in all facets of public administration, every public servant has to exhibit honesty, integrity, sincerity and faithfulness in implementation of the political, social, economic and constitutional policies to integrate the nation, to achieve excellence and efficiency in the public administration. A public servant entrusted with duty and power to Implement constitutional policy under Articles 14, 21 and 300A and all inter-related directive principles of state policy under the Constitution, should exhibit transparency in implementation and of accountable for due effectuation of constitutional goals.
20. In the present case, the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, has not discharged the duty entrusted to her within a reasonable period and initiated the proceedings after an inordinate delay of 38 years. The Deputy Commissioner who is a public servant entrusted with the duty under the KLR Act has to maintain the spirit of the KLR Act and cannot misuse the provisions after inordinate delay of 38 years as held by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra."
15. It is also relevant to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coollie Sangam v. K Suresh Reddy & Ors. reported in AIR 2003 SC 3592 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33094 WP No. 25171 of 2024 HC-KAR invoke the revisional jurisdiction after inordinate delay in having granted the land in favour of grantee.
16. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that no document has been produced by the respondents - Government to demonstrate that the subject land belongs to the Forest Department, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the respondent No.2 in the impugned order at Annexure-S is incorrect, and without any basis and further as the land in question has been granted in favour of the grandfather of petitioners No.2 to 5-Nanjegowda as per Annexure-A, and thereafter, the revenue records stand in the name of the father of petitioners No.2 to 5 - Siddegowda and as such, I am of the opinion that, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is unsustainable under law.
17. In that view of the matter, the findings recorded by the respondent No.2 in the impugned order (Annexure-S) is without any cogent documents and the finding is arbitrary in nature. Hence, I pass the following:
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33094
WP No. 25171 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The order dated 25.06.2024 vide Annexure-S
passed in RP No.28/2022 by the respondent No.2 is hereby set aside.
iii) The respondent No.4 is directed to enter the name of the petitioners in the mutation and RTC extract in respect of the subject land bearing Sy.No.136 to an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas in Block `B' of Koorgalli village, Ilawala Hobli, Mysuru Taluk within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36