Karnataka High Court
Girija vs The Government Of Karnataka on 28 July, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 18975 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1 . GIRIJA
W/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
RESIDENT OF SY. NO. 161/5
B.M. KAVAL VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560040
ALSO RESIDING AT NO. 654
5TH CROSS, 17TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK
KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560034.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SRUTI C. CHAGANTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE DEPARTMENT OF SURVEY
SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
2
BANGALORE CITY BANGALORE
BANGALORE-560001.
4. TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER AND EX-OFFICIO
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE CITY DISTRICT.
5. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF LAND RECORDS
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
6. THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
7. THE TALUK SURVEYOR
OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
RESPONDENT NOS. 4 TO 7
ALL HAVING OFFICE AT
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD
BANGALORE-560001.
8. B.P. SANATANA MURTHY
S/O B.P. SRIKANTAIAH
AGED MAJOR
RESIDING AT
C/O S.M. THIPPESWAMY
NO. 714, 25TH MAIN ROAD
17TH CROSS, 6TH STAGE
JP NAGARA, BANGALORE-560078.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R7;
SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R8)
3
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
02.09.2020 PASSED BY THE R4 IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING
NO.BHOO.JAM.NI./APPEAL 124/2017-18, PRODUCED HEREWITH AS
ANNEXURE-K, IN SO FAR AS IT DIRECTS EXERCISE OF POWER
UNDER SECTION 140(2) OF THE KLRA TO CORRECT THE
BOUNDARY MEASUREMENTS OF THE HISSA NUMBERS IN
SY.NO.161 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 25.07.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS
PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
C.A.V ORDER
The petitioner asserts that she is the absolute owner of
the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.161/5 measuring 4 acres
32 guntas, situated at B.M. Kaval Village. The petitioner's
claim is founded on the fact that her husband, late Siddappa,
had purchased the said property from the erstwhile owner
B.M. Narasimhamurthy under a registered sale deed dated
21.07.1972, which is produced at Annexure-A. Following the
execution of the sale deed, the name of Siddappa was duly
mutated in the revenue records, as evidenced by Annexure-
A1. Upon his demise, the mutation entries were further
updated to reflect the petitioner as the successor-in-interest,
4
which forms part of the documentary evidence placed on
record.
2. The petitioner has elaborated upon the historical
evolution of the land in question, asserting that the original
Sy.No.161 measured a total of 123 acres 1 guntas as per the
Akarband. She submits that around the year 1969-70, the
said Sy.No.161 was subdivided into Sy.Nos.161/1, 161/2,
161/3, 161/4, and 161/5. Subsequently, in the year 1973,
Sy.No.161/1 was further subdivided into Sy.Nos.161/1A,
161/1B, 161/1C, and 161/1D. The detailed extent of these
subdivisions is elaborated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition.
3. The controversy originated when respondent No.8
submitted two applications dated 23.04.2015 (Application Nos.
20020813995722 and 20020813995766), seeking phodi of
lands which he claimed to own in Sy.Nos.138/1A and 161/1.
These applications are annexed as Annexures-D and D1.
Acting on these applications, respondent No.5 (Assistant
Director of Land Records) sought approval to rebuild the L.R.
5
Pukka Book and the L.R. Tippani for the said survey numbers.
However, respondent No.3 (Joint Director of Land Records)
pointed out the existence of the L.R. Pukka Book and directed
respondent No.5 to verify the availability of other necessary
records, and in the event of their non-availability, to adhere to
the instructions issued under Circular No.
Tantrika/Adalitha/Suthole/17/08-09 dated 03.04.2009.
4. Respondent No.8 has asserted his right, title, and
possession over approximately 20 acres of land. The
petitioner has specifically contended that there exists a glaring
inconsistency between the extent shown in the MR (Mutation
Register) and the RTC (Record of Rights) concerning the lands
held by respondent No.8. Her primary grievance is that
instead of addressing this inconsistency through rectification of
RTC records via the Bhoomi system in accordance with law,
the authorities have embarked upon the exercise of rebuilding
the L.R. Tippani for Sy.No.161.
6
5. In the course of reconstructing the L.R. Tippani, the
authorities have claimed to have noticed two major
discrepancies: (i) the measurement of boundaries as recorded
in the hissa Tippani does not correspond with the total extent
recorded in the Akarband, and (ii) an area of 14 acres 10
guntas which is recorded as 'A' kharab in the Akarband is, in
fact, 'B' kharab and requires reclassification. Based on these
findings, an order bearing No.
Bhoo.Jam.Ni./Thiddupadi:229/2017-18 dated 11.10.2017 was
passed by respondent No.3 granting permission to rebuild the
Tippani and to carry out necessary corrections in kharab
entries, which is produced at Annexure-J.
6. Acting on the said order, respondent No.5 sought
cancellation of the existing hissa numbers in Sy.Nos.138 and
161. Respondent No.4 (Deputy Commissioner) took suo motu
cognizance of the issue and registered an appeal in
No.Bhoo.Jam.Ni./Appeal 124/2017-18. Notices were issued to
all occupants of the aforementioned survey numbers, including
the petitioner who was arrayed as respondent No.45, and
7
respondent No.8 who was arrayed as respondent No.32, as
evidenced by Annexure-J2. The petitioner submitted detailed
objections, placed on record as Annexure-J3.
7. After verifying the records, respondent No.4
dismissed the appeal, holding that the subdivision of
Sy.No.161 into Sy.Nos.161/1 to 161/5 in 1969-70, and the
further subdivision of Sy.No.161/1 into Sy.Nos.161/1A to
161/1D in 1973-74, had taken place based on multiple title
transactions and had long since attained finality. It was
concluded that there existed no justification to cancel the hissa
numbers or revisit the decades-old subdivisions. It was
further held that discrepancies in hissa boundary
measurements do not afford sufficient ground to invalidate
such subdivisions.
8. Despite this clear and conclusive finding by
respondent No.4, the petitioner contends that respondent No.3
subsequently directed rectification of hissa boundaries under
Section 140(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
8
Believing that the issue had attained finality and that any
further boundary corrections would be governed by Section
140(2) (which requires adjudication of disputes), the
petitioner did not immediately challenge the said direction.
9. However, pursuant to the directions issued by
respondent No.3, respondent No.4, despite having dismissed
the appeal, communicated on 02.09.2020 to respondent No.6
instructing initiation of proceedings under Rule 36(1) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 read with Section
140(2) of the Act, for rectification of hissa boundary
discrepancies in Sy.Nos.138 and 161. This communication is
part of Annexure-K.
10. In pursuance of the above, respondent No.6
(Tahsildar) issued notice to the petitioner, who filed detailed
objections (also annexed with Annexure-K). Nonetheless, by a
non-speaking order dated 28.07.2022, respondent No.6
directed rectification of boundaries and hissa measurements
as per the sketch prepared by respondent No.7 on
9
08.07.2022. This order is impugned and is produced
at Annexure-Q.
11. The petitioner challenges the impugned orders vide
Annexures-K and Q on multiple grounds, foremost being the
violation of principles of natural justice. It is asserted that
once respondent No.4 had dismissed the appeal and settled
the legality of the subdivisions, the subsequent directions
issued for boundary rectification are without jurisdiction and
amount to a virtual reopening of settled phodi proceedings.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has meticulously
taken the Court through the contents of the order
at Annexure-K, particularly emphasizing the findings on page
8, wherein it is categorically held that the subdivisions effected
in 1969-70 were based on valid title documents and thus
immune to rectification. The impugned sketch (Annexure-R32)
prepared during the proceedings before respondent No.6
allegedly alters the eastern boundary of the petitioner's land in
10
Sy.No.161/5, substantially reducing her extent and wrongfully
extending the boundary of respondent No.8's holding.
13. Counsel has also produced Google Maps to
demonstrate that the lands of respondent No.8 are not
contiguous with Sy.No.161/5 and are, in fact, located at the
extreme eastern end, beyond several other properties. It is
pointed out that the rectification directed by respondent No.6
goes far beyond the application filed by respondent No.8,
which was restricted to Sy.No.161/1A.
14. Referring to the original title deed, it is submitted
that the petitioner's husband had acquired Sy.No.161/5 after
its lawful sub-division and that the sale deed of respondent
No.8 pertains only to Sy.No.161/1A. The impugned
proceedings have thus indirectly unsettled a decades-old and
unchallenged sub-division.
15. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has submitted
detailed tables (at paras 5, 6, and 8), demonstrating how the
revenue records evolved and the discrepancies in the extent
11
claimed by respondent No.8 across mutation records, RTCs,
and sale deeds. It is pointed out that by 1983-84, the only
surviving survey numbers were the sub-divided ones, and no
land was recorded as Sy.No.161 or 161/1 in official records,
undermining the legality of the rectification exercise.
16. Notably, respondent No.8's counsel, while
reiterating the stand in the objections, has fairly conceded that
respondent No.8 lays no claim over Sy.Nos.161/2 to 161/5,
nor over Sy.Nos.161/1B, 161/1C, and 161/1D. His interest is
confined exclusively to Sy.No.161/1A. In light of the
procedural flaws and violation of natural justice alleged, he
submits that he would have no objection if the matter is
remanded to respondent No.6 for fresh consideration.
17. The learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.8
further argues that the sketch prepared by the survey
authorities rightly captures the ground reality and corrects the
misclassification of 'B' kharab lands. However, he submits that
if the Court finds that the impugned order (Annexure-Q)
12
suffers from procedural irregularity or fails to adhere to the
principles of natural justice, respondent No.8 would not
oppose remanding the matter for reconsideration.
18. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and learned counsel for the respondents.
19. This Court has given its anxious consideration to
the voluminous records produced by both the parties. The
operative portion of the order passed by the respondent No.4
would have a direct bearing, apart from the merits of the case.
This Court deems it fit to extract the relevant portion of the
order as well as the operative portion for ready reference
which reads as under:
"ಭೂ ಾಖ ೆಗಳ ಸ ಾಯಕ ೇ ಶಕರು ಪ ಾವ ೆ ಂ ೆ ಸ ದ ಾಖ ೆಗಳ"
ಾಗೂ ಪ #$ಾ ಗಳ" ಾಜರುಪ& ದ ಾಖ ೆಗಳಂ'ೆ ಪ ಕರಣವನು* ಸಮಗ $ಾ,
ಪ-.ೕ ಸ ಾ,, ಈ 0ೆಳಕಂಡ ಅಂಶಗಳನು* ಗಮ ಸ ಾ, ೆ.
1) ಸ.ನಂ. 138 ರ -ೕ0ಾ3ಆ0ಾರಬಂ ನಂ'ೆ ಐ7 272ಎಕ9ೆ-14ಗುಂ:ೆ,
ಖ9ಾಬು 47ಎಕ9ೆ-28ಗುಂ:ೆ, ;ಾ< 224ಎಕ9ೆ-26 ಗುಂ:ೆ = ೕಣ ಇದು?, ಸ.ನಂ.138/1
-ಂದ 16 ರವ9ೆ ೆ ಮತು ಸ.ನಂ. 161 ರ -ೕ0ಾ3 ಆ0ಾರಬಂ ನಂ'ೆ ಐ7
123ಎಕ9ೆ-01ಗುಂ:ೆ, ಖ9ಾಬು 14ಎಕ9ೆ-25ಗುಂ:ೆ, ;ಾ< 108ಎಕ9ೆ-16 ಗುಂ:ೆ
= ೕಣ =ದು? ಸ.ನಂ. 161/1 -ಂದ 161/5 ರವ9ೆ ೆ 1969-70 ೇ ಾ ನ , ನಂತರ
1974 ೇ ಾ ನ ಸ.ನಂ. 138/1 gÀ°è 138/1J, 1©, 1¹ JAzÀÄ, 1973 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è
13
¸À.£ÀA. 161/1 gÀ°è 161/1J, 1©, 1¹, JAzÀÄ, £ÀAvÀgÀ 1984£Éà ¸Á°£À°è ¸À.£ÀA.138/11gÀ°è
¸À.£ÀA.138/11J ¸À.£ÀA.138/11J, 11©, 11¹ JAzÀÄ »¸Áì Aೕ&ಗBಾ,ರುತ ೆ.
2) ಪ .*ತ Aೕ&ಯು ಕ ಮ$ಾ, ಸುCಾರು 50 ವಷ , 46ವಷ ಮತು 36
ವಷ ಗಳ" ಕBೆದ ತರು$ಾಯ ಾಖ 0ೊಂಡ ಸEಯಂ Fೆ ೕ-ತ GೕಲIನ=
ಇ ಾ,ರುತ ೆ.
3) ಪ .*ತ Aೕ& ಾಖ ೆಗಳನ*ನುಸ- Jೕ ವK$ಾಟುಗBಾ, ಹಕುN
ಾಖ ೆಗಳ ಬದ ಾವOೆPಾ,ರುವQದನು* ಪ #$ಾ ಗಳ" ಸ ದ ಾಖ ೆಗಳಂ'ೆ
ಗಮ ಸ ಾ,ರುತ ೆ.
4) GೕಲNಂಡ K ಾS ದುರ ಯಂ'ೆ ಾಗೂ ಾ #ದು?ಪ& TಪUVಯಂ'ೆ
;ಾಂzÀÄCಾಪQಗಳ ವW'ಾWಸ$ಾ,ರುವQ ಾ, 50 ವಷ ಗಳ Kಂ ನ Aೕ&
ದುರ ಯನು* ರದು?ಪ&ಸಲು 0ೋ-ದು?, ಸದ- ವW'ಾWಸವನು* ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಭೂಕಂ ಾಯ
ಯCಾವX 1966 ರ ಯಮ 36(1)ರ& ಪ- ಾರ
ಕಂಡು0ೊಳYಬಹು ಾ,ರುವQದ-ಂದ ಸದ- Aೕ& Cಾಡುವ PಾವQ ೇ ನೂWನW'ೆ
ಉಂ:ಾ, ೆ ಎಂದು ಕಂಡು ಬರುವQ ಲ.
5) ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಭೂಕಂ ಾಯ ಯCಾವX 1966 ರ ಯಮ 72 ರ ಪ 0ಾರ
ಹಕುN ಾಖ ೆಗಳ ನಮೂ ಾದ = ೕಣ ದಂ'ೆ Aೕ& Cಾಡುವ ಜ$ಾ;ಾ?- Cಾತ
ಭೂCಾಪನ ಇ ಾ[ೆಯ ಾ?,ರುತ ೆ.
6) ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಭೂಕಂ ಾಯ ಅ\ ಯಮ 1964 ರ ಕಲಂ 133 ರ ಪ 0ಾರ ಹಕುN
ಾಖ ೆಗಳ ನ ನಮೂದುಗಳನು* ಅದ0ೆN =ರುದ]$ಾ, ರುಜು$ಾ'ಾಗುವವ9ೆ ೆ
ಜ$ಾದು ೆಂದು ಪ^ವ _ಾವ ೆ ೊಂದ;ೇ0ಾ,ರುತ ೆ. ಈ Kನ* ೆಯ ಪ ಸುತ
ಹಕುN ಾಖ ೆಗಳ ನಮೂ ಾ,ರುವ = ೕಣ ದಂ'ೆ Aೕ& Cಾ&ರುವQದ-ಂದ
ಸದ- Aೕ& Cಾಡುವ PಾವQ ೇ ನೂWನW'ೆ ಉಂ:ಾ, ೆ ಎಂದು ಕಂಡು
ಬರುವQ ಲ.
ಈ ಎ ಾ ಅಂಶಗಳ Kನ* ೆಯ GೕಲIನ= ಾರರು ತಮI GೕಲIನ=ಯ ಪ .*ತ
Aೕ&ಯು ತFಾU, ೆ ಎಂದು ದೃಢಪTbರುವQ ಲ$ಾದ?-ಂದ GೕಲIನ=ಯನು*
ವcಾ ೊXಸುವQದು ಸೂಕ$ೆಂದು wÃCಾ , ಈ ಾWPಾಲಯವQ ಈ
0ೆಳಕಂಡಂ'ೆ ಆ ೇ. ೆ.
14
ಆ ೇಶ
ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಭೂಕಂ ಾಯ ಅ\ ಯಮ 1964 ರ ಕಲಂ 49(ಎ) ಅ& ಸೂdತ$ಾದ
ಅಂಶಗಳನು ಾರ, ;ೆಂಗಳeರು ದfಣ 'ಾಲೂಕು, 0ೆಂ ೇ- ೋಬX, g.ಎಂ.0ಾವh ಾ ಮದ
ಸ.ನಂ. 138 ರ ಸ.ನಂ.138/1 -ಂದ 16 ರವ9ೆ ೆ ಎಂದು ಸ.ನಂ. 138/1 ರ 138/1ಎ, 1g, 1
ಎಂದು, ¸À.£ÀA.138/11gÀ°è ¸À.£ÀA.138/11J, 11©, 11¹ JAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸À.£ÀA. 161
gÀ°è ¸À.£ÀA. 161/1 jAzÀ 161/5 JAzÀÄ, ಸ.ನಂ. 161/1 ರ 161/1ಎ, 1g, 1 ಎಂದು,
ದುರ ಾದ ಪ .*ತ K ಾS Aೕ& ಾಖ ೆಗಳಂ'ೆ ;ಾಂದುCಾಪQ ಅಳ'ೆಗX ೆ 'ಾBೆiಡುವ
ಸಂದಭ ದ ಹಕುN ಾಖ ೆಗಳಂ'ೆ = ೕಣ 0ೆN ವW'ಾWಸ$ಾಗುವ ಬ ೆj ಕ ಾ ಟಕ ಭೂಕಂ ಾಯ
ಅ\ ಯಮ 1964 ರ ಕಲಂ 140(2) ರ& ಸೂಕ ಪ ಾವ ೆ ತPಾ-ಸುವ ಬ ೆj ಭೂ ಾಖ ೆಗಳ
ಸ ಾಯಕ ೇ ಶಕ- ೆ ಸೂಚ ೆ ೕಡ ಾ, ೆ ಾಗೂ ಪ ಾವ ೆಯ =ವ- ದ ಎ ಾ
ಅಂಶಗಳ Kನ* ೆಯ GೕಲIನ=ಯನು* ವcಾ ೊX ಆ ೇ. ೆ.
ಈ GೕಲNಂಡ ಆ ೇಶವನು* ಉಕ ೇಖನ ೕ&, ಗಣ<ೕಕ- ದ ಪ #ಯನು* ಓ
ಪ-ಷN- , ಾಂಕ: 02-09-2020 ರಂದು 'ೆ9ೆದ ಾWPಾಲಯದ
ಬKರಂಗ$ಾ, mೂೕnಸ ಾ, ೆ."
20. The respondent No.4, while dismissing the appeal,
has categorically recorded that the phodi proceedings
conducted during the year 1969-70 were in accordance with
law and that no discrepancies were found in
the hissa demarcation carried out during the said period.
However, despite such a conclusive finding, respondent No.4
has clearly exceeded his authority by indirectly keeping the
matter alive. This is done through the issuance of directions to
respondent No.6, the Tahsildar, under Section 140(2) of the
15
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, purportedly for rectifying
discrepancies in the boundary measurements of the hissas by
tallying them with the title documents.
21. Such directions, it is submitted, are not only
arbitrary but are also beyond the scope of authority vested in
respondent No.6. Once the competent authority, i.e.,
respondent No.4, has concluded that no discrepancies exist in
the phodi or Hissa proceedings, it is wholly impermissible to
direct a rectification exercise aimed at reconciling boundary
measurements with title documents. This conduct by
respondent No.4, despite having held that no errors exist,
indicates a clear misuse of discretion and suggests malafide
intent.
22. Pursuant to the directions issued by respondent
No.4, respondent No.6 has initiated the process of modifying
or rectifying the boundaries in respect of Sy.Nos.138 and 161.
However, it is pertinent to clarify that in the present writ
16
petition, only Sy.No.161/5 is the subject matter of challenge
and consideration.
23. Upon a more detailed examination of the records,
particularly the order dated 11.10.2017 passed by respondent
No.3, the Joint Director of Land Records, it becomes evident
that further proceedings were initiated in connection with
Sy.No.161. As per Annexure-J, the said order approved the
reconstitution of the tippanni and directed respondent No.5 to
initiate steps to rectify the entries relating to kharab land in
the Akarband register. These actions were initiated based on
an application submitted by respondent No.8.
24. In the course of re-building the Land Records
(LR) tippanni for Sy.No.161, the authorities reportedly
discovered two significant discrepancies: (i) The measurement
of boundaries as recorded in the hissa tippanni did not match
the total extent recorded in the Akarband register; and (ii) An
extent of 14 acres and 10 guntas, which was earlier classified
17
as Akarband, was found to be actually 'B' kharab and required
reclassification accordingly.
25. The directions issued by respondent No.3 under
Annexure-J are accompanied by two tabular statements,
identified as Index-I and Index-II. For the purposes of the
present proceedings, attention is confined exclusively to the
details pertaining to Sy.No.161. The discrepancies highlighted
in the order through the aforementioned indices are central to
the challenge raised herein.
C£ÀħAzsÀ-1
FV£ÀAvÉ DPÁgÀ§Azï «¹ÛÃtð
¸À.£ÀA L£ï RgÁ§Ä RgÁ§Ä RgÁ§Ä ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ ¨Á§Ä zÀgÀ DPÁgÀ
'J' '©' '¹' «¹ÛÃtð
138 272-14 45-26 2-02 47-28 224-26 RÄ¶Ì 0-84 188-71
161 123-01 14-10 0-15 14-25 108-16 RÄ¶Ì 0-84 82-42
C£ÀħAzsÀ-2
wzÀÄÝ¥ÀrAiÀÄAvÉ DPÁgÀ§Azï «¹ÛÃtð
¸À.£ÀA L£ï RgÁ§Ä RgÁ§Ä RgÁ§Ä ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ ¨Á§Ä zÀgÀ DPÁgÀ
'J' '©' '¹' «¹ÛÃtð
138 272-14 - 48-38 48-38 223-16 RÄ¶Ì 0-84 187-66
161 123-01 - 14-25 14-25 108-16 RÄ¶Ì 0-84 82-42
Emphasis Supplied by me
18
26. Upon examining the two tables annexed to the
order dated 11.10.2017, it becomes evident that respondent
No.3, while issuing directions to respondent No.5, has failed to
take cognizance of a crucial fact namely, that Sy.No.161 had
already undergone phodi operations and was subdivided into
Sy.Nos.161/1, 161/2, 161/3, 161/4, and 161/5 as far back as
in the year 1969-70. Despite this undisputed factual position,
respondent No.3 appears to have proceeded under a mistaken
assumption that the original Sy.No.161 continues to exist as a
whole and undivided survey number in the revenue records.
This assumption is patently erroneous and inconsistent with
the actual state of the records.
27. Acting on the basis of the said directions issued by
respondent No.3 (as per Annexure-J), respondent No.5 has,
under the guise of implementing the order dated 11.10.2017,
proceeded to cancel the hissa numbers within Sy.No.161, as
evidenced by Annexure-J1. In doing so, respondent No.5 has
entirely overlooked the fact that Sy.No.161 no longer exists in
19
its original form and has long since been subdivided. What is
particularly striking is that the order passed by respondent
No.5 (Annexure-J1) now reflects 14 acres and 25 guntas of
land earlier classified as 'A' kharab within Sy.No.161 as having
been reclassified as 'B' kharab. The 'A' kharab extent is now
shown as 'Nil'. Consequently, respondent No.5 has directed
rectification of the revenue records and corresponding
amendments in the Akarband register to reflect this erroneous
reclassification.
28. Following the orders passed by respondent Nos.3
and 5, i.e., Annexures-J and J1 respectively, respondent No.4
has registered a suo motu appeal and issued notices to all the
landholders and occupants pertaining to Sy.Nos.138 and 161.
However, for the purpose of the present proceedings, only
Sy.No.161 is relevant. The conclusions drawn by respondent
No.4, upon verifying the records, have already been discussed
earlier. Respondent No.4 has unequivocally held that
cancellation of hissa numbers is impermissible in view of the
fact that Sy.No.161 has been subdivided way back in 1969-70.
20
29. Notwithstanding this clear finding, respondent
No.4, in a rather contradictory move, proceeds to issue a
direction to respondent No.5 to rectify the discrepancies in
boundary measurements. This direction is issued under the
purported exercise of powers under Section 140(2) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and instructs respondent
No.5 to undertake a boundary correction exercise by referring
to the respective title documents. This part of the order is
clearly inconsistent with the earlier finding recorded by
respondent No.4 himself, wherein it was held that the sub-
divisions of Sy.No.161 are legal and final and that there is no
scope for any further rectification of boundary measurements.
30. Thus, the core issue that arises for consideration
before this Court is whether respondent No.4, having
categorically concluded that the sub-divisions of Sy.No.161
were effected in 1969-70 and further noting that Sy.No.161/1
has itself been further subdivided in 1974 into Sy.Nos.161/1A,
161/1B, 161/1C and 161/1D with multiple transactions having
21
since taken place in these subdivisions, could have validly
issued a subsequent direction to undertake a rectification of
the boundary measurements.
31. This Court is of the view that the issuance of such a
direction, after recording a finding that no discrepancies exist
and that multiple sub-divisions and transactions have
occurred, is wholly without jurisdiction and legally
unsustainable. This latter portion of the order is not only
contrary to the Akarband records but also runs counter to the
reasoning recorded in the same order by respondent No.4, as
evidenced by Annexure-K, insofar as Sy.No.161 is concerned.
32. For ease of reference and to underscore the
inconsistencies, this Court deems it appropriate to extract
below the relevant table from Annexure-K, which highlight the
discrepancies in the official records and form the basis of the
impugned rectification proceedings.
22
¸À.£ÀA. DPÁgÀÀ§A¢£ÀAvÉ «¹ÛÃtð
»¸Áì £ÀA L£ï RgÁ¨ï ¨ÁQ ¨Á§Ä DPÁgÀ
J-UÀÄ J-UÀÄ J-UÀÄ
161 1 93-24 11-35 81-29 RÄ¶Ì 59-99
2 07-39 01-06 06-33 " 05-74
3 05-19 0-19 05-00 " 04-20
4 10-32 0-30 10-02 " 08-45
5 05-07 0-15 04-32 " 04-01
MlÄÖ 123-01 14-25 108-16 188-81
............ 1973 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è ¸À.£ÀA. 161/1 gÀ°è 161/1J, 1©, 1¹ JAzÀÄ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ »¸Áì
zÀÄgÀ¹ÛUÀ¼ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
33. Upon perusal of the relevant table, it becomes
evident that Sy.No.161 has been subjected to five sub-
divisions. In the present writ petition, the land bearing
Sy.No.161/5, measuring 5 acres and 7 guntas, is the specific
subject matter under consideration. The petitioner's husband
is stated to have lawfully purchased this extent of land, which
also includes 15 guntas classified as 'A' kharab land. The total
extent of A kharab land recorded in respect of Sy.No.161 is 14
acres and 25 guntas.
34. Furthermore, the records also indicate that
Sy.No.161/1 has subsequently undergone four additional sub-
divisions, resulting in the creation of Sy.Nos.161/1A, 161/1B,
23
161/1C, and 161/1D. These sequential sub-divisions further
reinforce the settled nature of the land records and the finality
attached to the phodi proceedings conducted decades ago.
35. In view of the relevance of these sub-divisions to
the controversy at hand, this Court considers it appropriate to
extract below the table depicting the sub-division of
Sy.No.161/1 into its four respective parts:
¸À.£ÀA. DPÁgÀÀ§A¢£ÀAvÉ «¹ÛÃtð
»¸Áì £ÀA L£ï RgÁ¨ï ¨ÁQ ¨Á§Ä DPÁgÀ
J-UÀÄ J-UÀÄ J-UÀÄ
161 1J 81-06 11-08 69-38 RÄ¶Ì 50-09
1© 05-24 0-24 05-00 " 04-20
1¹ 03-17 - 03-17 " 02-88
1r 03-17 0-03 03-14 " 02-82
MlÄÖ 93-24 11-35 81-29 59-99
36. A careful examination of the table referred to above
clearly indicates that in Sy.Nos. 161/1A to 161/1D, a total
extent of 11 acres and 35 guntas has been recorded as
'A' kharab land. This finding is of significance in the present
case, as it reinforces the settled nature of
24
the phodi and hissa proceedings concerning Sy.No.161 and its
various sub-divisions.
37. Pursuant to the directions issued by respondent
No.4, respondent No.6, without any authority or jurisdiction,
has proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 28.07.2022
which is produced at Annexure-Q. The sketch relied upon by
respondent No.8, forming part of the record as Annexure-R33,
shows a significant and unexplained reduction in the extent of
land held by the petitioner in Sy.No.161/5. This newly
drawn phodi and PT sheet, prepared at the instance of
respondent No.6, is in direct contravention of the conclusions
reached by respondent No.4 himself in his detailed findings as
per Annexure-K.
38. The entire exercise undertaken by the revenue
authorities, particularly respondents No.5 and 6, is
demonstrably contrary to the existing land records and is
unsupported by law. It is pertinent to note that respondent
No.8 has candidly admitted to having submitted an application
25
claiming ownership over 20 acres of land situated in
Sy.No.161/1A. A perusal of the sketches produced by both the
petitioner and respondent No.8 clearly establishes that the
land held by respondent No.8 is located on the extreme
eastern boundary of Sy.No.161/1A, while the petitioner's land
in Sy.No.161/5 is located on a completely different side, with
several intervening properties lying between the two holdings.
39. The core issue that arises for consideration is
whether, while entertaining an application filed by respondent
No.8 seeking phodi in Sy.No.161/1A, the revenue authorities
were justified in disturbing the B kharab classification and
extending their action to other sub-divisions, including
Sy.No.161/5. This question becomes all the more pertinent in
light of the unambiguous finding recorded by respondent No.4
that no discrepancies exist in the boundary measurements
or hissa allotments post-subdivision.
40. This Court is of the considered view that the entire
process initiated by respondent No.6, purportedly pursuant to
26
the directions of respondent No.4, despite dismissal of the
appeal, is tainted with malafides. The exercise of reclassifying
or correcting A kharab land, without any formal challenge to
the original phodi proceedings conducted in 1969-70, is
fundamentally flawed and lacks legal sanction. The petitioner
has purchased Sy.No.161/5, measuring 5 acres and 7 guntas,
only after the land was subdivided into five parts. Once sub-
division is effected and the land is conveyed, the distinct
identity and character of Sy.No.161/5 stands crystallized. The
presence of 15 guntas of 'A' kharab within the petitioner's
holding forms part of a settled record, and this cannot be
unsettled at the behest of respondent No.8, who is merely the
holder of 20 acres in Sy.No.161/1A.
41. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for
the petitioner regarding discrepancies in the extent of land
held by respondent No.8 is well-founded. A comparative
analysis of the mutation records and revenue documents
reveals substantial inconsistencies. While the mutation entry
reflects that respondent No.8 holds 21 acres in Sy.No.161/1A,
27
the RTC extract produced at Annexure-R12 indicates
possession of 20 acres. Moreover, the title documents
produced by respondent No.8 show ownership to the extent of
only 18 acres. Thus, the discrepancy lies entirely within the
records pertaining to respondent No.8's landholding in
Sy.No.161/1A. Any rectification, if at all warranted, ought to
have been confined strictly to Sy.No.161/1A and should not
have extended to other sub-divisions such as Sy.Nos.161/2,
161/3, 161/4, 161/5, or 161/1B to 161/1D.
42. The entire administrative action undertaken by the
revenue authorities is arbitrary, irregular, and not in
consonance with any procedure established under the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The learned Senior
Counsel appearing for respondent No.8 made a feeble attempt
to argue that the matter may be remitted back to respondent
No.6, on the premise that the petitioner was not heard and
that principles of natural justice were violated. However, this
Court is not inclined to accept such a suggestion. Even if
respondent No.8 concedes or consents to such relief being
28
granted, the foundational illegality in disturbing the sub-
divided holdings, despite the finality attached
to phodi conducted in 1969-70 renders the entire process
vitiated. Therefore, the very initiation of enquiry into the lands
in Sy.Nos.161/2 to 161/5 and Sy.Nos.161/1B to 161/1D was
uncalled for and wholly without jurisdiction.
43. It is further pertinent to observe that the owners of
the lands situated in Sy.Nos.161/2, 161/3, 161/4, and in
Sy.Nos.161/1B, 161/1C, and 161/1D are located on the
extreme western flank of the original Sy.No.161. These land
parcels are vertically aligned and are geographically distinct
from Sy.No.161/1A. Importantly, there are no inter se
disputes among these landowners regarding boundary
alignments or extents. Despite the absence of any grievance
or discrepancy reported by these parties, the authorities have
inexplicably extended the boundary rectification exercise to
include their lands as well, thereby overreaching their
mandate and causing unnecessary legal uncertainty. As such,
the order impugned in this writ petition is liable to be quashed.
29
44. It is a well-settled principle of law that
once phodi proceedings are lawfully conducted and concluded,
no fresh phodi can be initiated unless the
original hissa proceedings are legally challenged and set aside
in the manner prescribed by law. In the instant case,
the phodi pertaining to Sy.No.161 was completed as early as
1969-70. Respondent No.4, after securing and examining the
original land records, has arrived at the categorical conclusion
that there are no discrepancies in the original moola tippani.
Therefore, the subsequent attempts by the revenue authorities
to reopen and alter the settled sub-divisions are impermissible
in law and unsustainable on facts.
45. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed;
(ii) The impugned order passed by the respondent No.4 as per Annexure-K and the order 30 passed by respondent No.6 as per Annexure-Q are quashed;
(iii) Pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA