Karnataka High Court
Sri Gajendra vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:16934
WP No. 5983 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 5983 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. GAJENDRA,
S/O LATE JYOTHAMMA
W/O LATE JAYARAMAPPA.,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
2. SRI. S.J.SUDHAKAR.,
S/O LATE JYOTHAMMA,
W/O LATE JAYARAMAPPA.,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
3. SRI. MURALI,
S/O LATE JYOTHAMMA,
W/O JAYARAMAPPA.,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
signed by
KIRAN
KUMAR R
Location:
PETITIONER No.1 TO 3 ARE
HIGH R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
4. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR,
S/O LATE LAKSHMAMMA,
D/O LATE NADIPENNA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT No.33, SINGH COMPLEX,
DEVI CIRCLE, VIDHYARANYAPURA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:16934
WP No. 5983 of 2023
BENGALURU-560 097.
5. SMT. IMAVATHY,
D/O BALAGURUVI REDDY,
W/O LINGALA RANGA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT No.97, 2ND PHASE,
SIRINAGARA,
CHIKKA BETTAHALLI,
VIDHYARANYAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 097.
6. SMT. PUTTAMMA,
D/O NANJUNDAPPA,
W/O H.T.THAMME GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/AT No.81, 8TH CROSS,
1ST MAIN, SHARADAMBA NAGAR,
JALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 013.
ALL ARE REPTD. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
SRI. R.NAGARAJA REDDY,
S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT No.E-285, SINGANAYAKANAHALLI,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE-560 064.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VISWANATHA SETTY.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMNET,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:16934
WP No. 5983 of 2023
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
YELAHANKA TALUK,
YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064.
4. KARNATAKA STATE LAWN TENNIS ASSOCIATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
CUBBON PARK, BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BYSRI.SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONG WITH SRI. V.G. BHANU PRAKASH, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SRI. V.SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI. BHADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2023 PASSED BY THE R-1 TO 3 AUTHORITIES IN LND(Y)CR 164/2020-21 VIDE ANNEXURE-M TO AN EXTENT OF 7 ACRES OF LAND IN SY.No.19 OF THIMMASANDRA VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,NOW YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT OUT OF THE A, B, C AND D SCHEDULE PROPERTIES FOR LEASING THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE R-4 ALLOWING THE ABOVE WP, ETC.
THISPETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:16934 WP No. 5983 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CAV ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed by six petitioners challenging the decision of the State Government by which it has decided to lease an extent of 07-00 acres of land in Survey No.19 of Thimmasandra village, Jala Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, to the Karnataka State Lawn Tennis Association ("the KSLTA", for short) for the purpose of establishing a world-class tennis stadium for a period of thirty years.
2. The case put forth by the petitioners is as follows:
3. The petitioners contend that they were in unauthorized occupation of 14-00 acres in Sy.No.19 since 1965 and in the year 1968, they had applied to the Tahsildar for regularization of their unauthorized cultivation. They contended that on 10.01.1978, the Tahsildar informed the Assistant Commissioner by way of a communication that the petitioners were in unauthorized occupation of 14-00 acres of land in -5- NC: 2025:KHC:16934 WP No. 5983 of 2023 Survey No.19 and had made their applications on 10.11.1977 for granting the said land. The Tahsildar informed the Assistant Commissioner that the total extent of Gomal land available in the village was 68- 00 acres and there were only 80 cattle in the village and as a consequence, the existing Gomal was sufficient for the requirement of cattle.
4. It is their further case that the Assistant Commissioner had in turn made a recommendation to the Deputy Commissioner on 08.05.1978 confirming that the petitioner's unauthorized occupation was required to be approved.
5. On 26.06.1978, the Deputy Commissioner is stated to have issued an Official Memorandum, reducing 14- 00 acres from the Gomal land in Survey No.19, permitted these 14-00 acres of land to be used for agricultural purposes.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:16934 WP No. 5983 of 2023
6. On 11.09.1978, another Official Memorandum is stated to have been issued by the Deputy Commissioner granting the land to Lakshmamma-- the mother of petitioner No.4, Imavathy--petitioner No.5, Puttamma--petitionerNo.6 and Jyothamma-- mother of petitioner Nos.1 to 3.
7. The Tahsildar in turn is stated to have issued notices calling upon the aforementioned persons to pay an upset price ranging from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.2,000/- and the petitioners contended that they paid the sums demanded by the Tahsildar and have produced (four) receipts dated 17.10.1978.
8. The petitioners state that thereafter, on 27.11.1979, the Grant Certificates were issued to them and they also stated that in the Ahawal Takthe, their names were entered as grantees.
9. The petitioners contend that they approached the Tahsildar requesting their names to be entered in the -7- NC: 2025:KHC:16934 WP No. 5983 of 2023 revenue records and the Tahsildar in turn sought for clarification from the Assistant Commissioner on 04.01.2013 and the Assistant Commissioner responded with a reply dated 22.01.2013 stating that the name of the grantees were not entered in the revenue records and the I.L. and the R.R. were also not available.
10. The Assistant Commissioner also stated that the grants relied upon by the petitioners were available in the file and he was required to take a decision at his level itself on verification of the original records.
11. It is the case of the petitioners that the Tahsildar in turn sought a report from the Revenue Inspector and the Revenue Inspector submitted a Report stating that the original records did indicate that there were grants and the grantees were in possession. He however stated that in the J.L.L. sketch [Joint Land Measurement and Layout Sketch] instead of entering the name of the petitioners, by mistake the name of -8- NC: 2025:KHC:16934 WP No. 5983 of 2023 others had been entered. He ultimately recommended for the Khata to be registered.
12. The petitioners contend that the officials had informed them that the files had been misplaced and therefore the revenue records were not updated and as a consequence, they were constrained to file W.P. No.12998 of 2020 in which this Court dismissed their writ petition by order dated 04.02.2021 and granted liberty to approach the authorities within a period of eight weeks and if they give a representation, the authorities were to redress the petitioners' grievance within a reasonable time.
13. The petitioners contend that they accordingly submitted a representation to the Tahsildar requesting him to mutate their names in the revenue records. The petitioners contend that on 27.10.2020, proposals were made to allot 07-00 acres for establishing a marketing yard by A.P.M.C. and a survey was conducted and the petitioners went on to -9- NC: 2025:KHC:16934 WP No. 5983 of 2023 object to the said proposals. They contend that these objections were considered, and the proposals were dropped.
14. They submit that as the matter stood thus, the State Government proceeded to pass an order on 24.02.2023 by which it has decided to lease 07-00 acres of land in Survey No.19 by relaxing the extent of Gomal, in favour of KSLTA for the purpose of establishing a world-class tennis stadium.
15. The petitioners state that they gave representations against the said grant and since no action was taken, they were constrained to approach this Court by way of this writ petition.
16. The State has filed objections in which the State denies all the assertions made by the petitioners and the State has taken up a specific contention that all the documents produced by the petitioners were fake
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16934 WP No. 5983 of 2023 documents and there were no grants made in their favour.
17. The State specifically highlights the fact that though the grantees claim that the land was granted in the year 1978, but till the year 2013, they had not made any application for transfer of Khata and had not produced any tax paid receipts and that they were never in cultivation of the lands in question.
18. The learned Advocate General submitted that it is no doubt true that the documents that the petitioners relied upon to establish their grant were in fact available in the file, but these documents were all concocted documents, and no reliance can be placed on them.
19. The learned Advocate General submitted that the copies of the documents produced before this Court were all certified copies of a particular file and apart from this particular file, there were no other
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16934 WP No. 5983 of 2023 corresponding files or corresponding documents available to corroborate this grant.
20. The learned Advocate General placed on record a communication issued by the Tahsildar stating that from 12.06.1975 till 28.12.1981, three Assistant Commissioners, namely S.M.Anantaram, K.Venkatasubbarao and C.H.Devaraj were in-charge and the signatures found in the records relied upon by the petitioners did not indicate that they were signed by any of these three officers.
21. He also placed on record the decisions rendered by aforesaid Assistant Commissioners to indicate that they were in-charge of the particular area in respect of which the land grants were being claimed.
22. The State has also filed synopsis and chronology of events (along with the Memo dated 22.03.2025) of the grants and the phodi conducted in respect of the lands granted in Survey No.19.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16934 WP No. 5983 of 2023
23. This synopsis states that the total extent of Survey No.19 as per the original Aakarbandh was 68acres 10 guntas and out of the said extent, the following grants were made:
"REGARDING SY.No.19 OF THIMMASANDRA VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK TOTAL EXTENT (As per original 68-10A/Gunta Akarbandh) TYPE GOVERNMENT GOMALA LAND GRANT DETAILS
1) Shamanna s/o Sitaramaiah 6-00 A/Gunta Granted in the year
2) Shamanna s/o Sitaramaiah 4-00 A/Gunta 1942-43.
3) K.Srirangachar 20-00 A/Gunta Grant file not available in Office.
Entry available in RTC, RR since 1968- 69
4) Mylar Bin Ganga 0-30 A/Gunta
5) Munichar s/o Ganga 0-15 A/Gunta Granted vide
6) Venkatesaya 0-26 A/Gunta LND/SR(1)78/1977-
7) Muniyappa s/o Gangappa 0-28 A/Gunta 78,
8) Hanumantharao s/o 0-19 A/Gunta dated:04/07/1979
Patalappa and 14/03/1979.
9) Attur hanumantappa 0-25 A/Gunta Grant file available in
10) Narasimhaiah s/o 0-16 A/Gunta office.
Kadiramuniga
11) Muniyappa s/o Karappa 0-25 A/Gunta
TOTAL 34-24 A/Gunta
• Ashraya Scheme - 3-02 A/Gunta
• Karnataka State Lawn Tennis Association - 7-00 A/Gunta
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16934
WP No. 5983 of 2023
• Out of the above-sanctioned land, 3 acres and 13
guntas (3-13 A/G) of land have been permanently surveyed and recorded in the Akarbandh as per the land sanction.
• The said survey number is marked as a scale number, and there is a reduction of 2 acres and 7 guntas (2-07 A/G) in area. As per the current Akarbandh record, the total land available is 63 acres and 7 guntas (63- 07 A/G).
• According to the RTC and sanction records available in this office, a total of 52 acres and 26 guntas (52-26 A/G) have been alienated (transferred/sanctioned). The remaining 10 acres and 31 guntas (10-31 A/G) are classified as government land. • There is no consistency/tally between the Akarbandh area and the area recorded in RTC columns 3 and 9. As per the official memorandum of the honourable Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, Memo No: BDIS/LND(1)SR/960/1978-79, dated:20/02/1979, and the official memorandum of the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Division, Memo No:BDIS/LND/RUC/608/1977-78, dated 05/03/1979, as well as the official memorandum of the Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk, Memo No:LND/(1)78/1977-78, dated 04/07/1979 and 14/03/1979, the grant certificate has been issued.
The original sanction file is available, and the details of the sanctioned beneficiaries are as follows.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16934
WP No. 5983 of 2023
Name of the Beneficiary Extent
1) Mylar Bin Ganga 0-30 A/Gunta
2) Munichar s/o Ganga 0-15 A/Gunta
3) Venkatesaya 0-26 A/Gunta
4) Muniyappa s/o Gangappa 0-28 A/Gunta
5) Hanumantharao s/o Patalappa 0-19 A/Gunta
6) Attur Hanumantappa 0-25 A/Gunta
7) Narasimhaiah s/o 0-16 A/Gunta
Kadiramuniga
8) Muniyappa s/o karappa 0-25 A/Gunta
TOTAL 4-24 A/Gunta
Details of the revised new survey numbers in Survey No. 19 of Thimmasandra Village, Jala Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk:
Old New Revised
Sl.No. Owner Name Extent
Sy.No Sy.No on
1 104 Mailarappa s/o 0-30 A/G 11/09/2014
Gangappa
2 19 105 Muniyappa s/o 0-28 A/G 11/09/2014
Ganga
3 106 Muniyappa s/o 0-25 A/G 11/09/2014
Kurlappa
4 107 Narasimha s/o 0-16 A/G 11/09/2014
KadriMuniga
5 108 Hanumatarao 0-19 A/G 08/10/2016
s/o Patalappa
6 109 Muniseerappa 0-15 A/G 06/04/2022
s/o Gangappa
24. It is also stated that an extent of 03 acres 02 guntas has been granted for formation of sites under the Aashraya scheme and by the impugned order, the KSLTA has been leased an extent of 07-00 acres of land.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16934 WP No. 5983 of 2023
25. It is stated that according to the sanction records and the RTCs available, a total extent of 52 acres 26 guntas has been transferred/sanctioned and there remained an extent of 10 acres 31 guntas and they are classified as Government lands.
26. It is stated that there was a sanction file available in which an Official Memorandum of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru dated 20.02.1979 was available and according to which, the grants mentioned above, totally measuring 04 acres 24 guntas, had been made.
27. It is also stated that a Durasti was conducted, and new survey numbers were assigned to these grantees as Survey Nos.104, 105, 106, 107, 108 and
109.
28. It is therefore contended that the grants claimed by the petitioners were non-existent and since the entire claim of the petitioners was based on fake
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16934 WP No. 5983 of 2023 documents, they had no right to challenge the lease of 07-00 acres to the KSLTA.
29. It is also contended that the petitioners are basically coming in the way of a world-class tennis stadium being established which would ultimately be in the public interest and would enrich the sports culture of the State.
30. In light of the above, the only question which would arise for consideration in this writ petition is:
" Whether there was a grant of lands in favour of the petitioners' predecessors-in-title and whether the petitioners are justified in contending that their lands were sought to be granted by way of a lease to the KSLTA?"
31. At the outset, it is to be stated here that the Government has produced the entire file relating to the grants as claimed by the petitioner and also the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16934 WP No. 5983 of 2023 file relating to the grants made in respect of the other extents in Sy.No.19.
32. The petitioners have also placed on record the original Grant Certificates said to have been issued to them and also the certified copies of the documents issued to them. It is pertinent to state here at the outset that the certified copies produced by the petitioners are all copies of the documents, which are also produced by the State Government but, which the State Government contends that they are all fake documents.
33. In other words, this is a case in which the State Government asserts that there is a file relating to the grants made in favour of the petitioners in their record, but these records are all concocted and have been built up so as to cheat the Government of its lands.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16934 WP No. 5983 of 2023
34. The original file, relating to the grants which the State admits grants were made to the extent of 4 acres 24 guntas, which has been produced by the State, contains the applications that were submitted by the villagers for grant of lands in Survey No.19. The file also contains an Official Memorandum dated 10.01.1979 under which the Special Divisional Commissioner had reduced the extent of 04 acres 24 guntas from the extent of Gomal land available in Survey No.19.
35. The file also contains an agreement executed in Form No.5 by the grantees on stamp papers. This set of documents therefore indicate that the State Government is justified in stating that there were only grants made by the State to the extent of 04 acres 24 guntas and there were no other grants made.
36. A perusal of the file also indicates that pursuant to the order of grant, a request was made to the Survey
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16934 WP No. 5983 of 2023 Authorities to conduct a survey and for measurement of the lands in question and the Survey Authorities have also conducted a survey in respect of the lands granted to the grantees to an extent of 04 acres 24 guntas.
37. It is also forthcoming from the records that the survey was conducted, and the names of the grantees were indicated in the pakka book page and the boundary marks as indicated in the sketch had also been fixed.
38. These documents therefore would confirm the fact that pursuant to a grant of 04 acre 24 guntas over a larger extent of land, necessitated a survey, which was conducted and ultimately, new survey numbers were assigned after the lands were measured.
39. As compared to this particular file, if the file which was available in relation to the lands claimed by the petitioners is compared, apart from the applications
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16934 WP No. 5983 of 2023 said to have been filed by the petitioners and the grant certificates, there are no other documents to indicate the further steps that were taken, such as conducting a survey and assigning a new survey number.
40. The file of the petitioners does not contain the office notings which indicate the adoption of the process to consider the application of the petitioners, as in the file relating to the other grantees.
41. In short, the file produced by the State Government in respect of the petitioners' land contains the exact documents that are produced by the petitioners and no other documents.
42. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the process of granting a land is an elaborate process in which several officers of a few departments are necessarily required to be involved. The file should contain a noting of the applications, the steps taken
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16934 WP No. 5983 of 2023 pursuant to the applications, the deliberations on the file notings recommending the grant or raising objections to the grant and the orders of the grant and more importantly, the steps that are taken after the grant to effectuate the grant in favour of the grantees.
43. These requirements are completely absent in the file produced by the State Government in relation to the grants claimed by the petitioners. This would therefore create a serious doubt as to whether the file that is available with the State Government does relate to a grant actually made in favour of the petitioners and their predecessors-in-title.
44. It is to be noticed here that the first step of granting a land is the receipt of application, the consideration of the application, verification of the application and the determination by the relevant officers regarding the entitlement of the applicant for being granted the land.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16934 WP No. 5983 of 2023
45. Once a decision is taken to grant the land and especially in a case in which only a small portion of the larger extent has been granted, it would become necessary for the granting authorities to refer the matter for identifying and fixing their boundaries to the Survey Department and the Survey Department would thereafter conduct a survey, identify the lands which are in the possession of the grantees and fix the boundaries to it and also assign new survey numbers. This would be necessary when the lands granted are smaller portions of a larger extent in order to avoid any confusion and in order to create a record of the grant and the subsequent handing over of the possession to the grantees. In the case file relating to the petitioners, none of these processes are forthcoming.
46. There is no doubt an Official Memorandum of the Divisional Commissioner in which the extent of land in the Gomal is reduced. There are also
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16934 WP No. 5983 of 2023 communications indicating that the recommendation of the Tahsildar or the Assistant Commissioner, and ultimately the order of grant of and the saguvali chits were issued, but as observed above, the process adopted in considering the application, such as file noting and the verification of the application by various officers at various levels is absent.
47. It is therefore clear that the records that are relied upon by the petitioners to contend that there is a grant are not trustworthy. The fact that these records are produced by the State and the certified copies of only these documents have been produced by the petitioners, renders their claim trustworthy as rightly contended by the Learned Advocate General. This contention stands confirmed by the non- occurrence of the events which would be normal after a grant is made so as to give effect to the grant.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16934 WP No. 5983 of 2023
48. As noticed above, in respect of the grants of 4 acres 24 guntas, which the State admits that there is a process adopted to conduct a Durasti, fix the boundaries and identify the lands in possession of the grantees therein, assignment of new survey numbers. All these records are of contemporaneous period i.e., immediately after the grant was made, thereby establishing only one set of grants were made during the said period and it was not in favour of the petitioners.
49. In the case of the petitioners, though they claim that the land was granted to them in the year 1979, the further steps that were required to be taken effectuate the grants, such as reference of the file to the Survey Department, a Durasti to be conducted by the survey officials are completely absent. More importantly, though the grant was stated to be made in the year 1979, none of the grantees had made
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16934 WP No. 5983 of 2023 applications or a request for getting their names registered in the revenue records till the year 2013.
50. In other words, for a period of 25 years i.e., nearly a quarter of a century, the petitioners or their predecessors-in-title did not make any attempt to get their names registered in the revenue records.
51. In a situation where the lands which were in unauthorized occupation of the persons have been regularized and a sum ranging from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.2,000/- had been collected for granting the land, it is inconceivable that those persons would not take any steps to get their names reflected in the revenue records.
52. The further fact that the petitioners have not even paid any taxes for this period of 25 years would also substantiate the assertions of the State Government that the grants which were being set up by the petitioners were fraudulent.
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16934 WP No. 5983 of 2023
53. It is also to be noticed that the petitioners made attempts to get their names entered in the revenue records only in the year 2013 and thereafter, they once again kept quiet till the year 2021 when they made a fresh application.
54. This indicates that at least in the year 2013, the petitioners were aware that their names were to be entered in the revenue records, and this also indicates that they did not take any steps earlier.
55. The original file also indicates that the applications under the Right to Information Act requesting copies were made only in the year 2011 and it is therefore obvious from this that these documents were obtained by the petitioners for the first time in the year 2011 and there are no other documents to indicate that for this long period of time from 1979 to 2011, there is nothing available in the file which renders the entire grant improbable, simply because, if a land had been granted, the file would actually
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16934 WP No. 5983 of 2023 start moving after the land grant has been made, because it is those steps taken after the grant which would really confer title on the grantee.
56. Further, the file relating to the petitioners containing the grant certificate, state that the boundaries of the lands are as per the sketch of the inspector. However, no such sketch is forthcoming in the records.
57. If the identification, as stated in the grant certificate, i.e., the sketch is not available in the records, this would render the grant improbable. The applications available in the file would also indicate that the applicants have claimed that they were in unauthorized occupation for periods ranging from 10 to 15 years and in the relevant column, all of them have stated that they have paid a T.T. fine. However, the file does not indicate any receipts for having paid the T.T. fine.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16934 WP No. 5983 of 2023
58. In this view of the matter, in my view, the State Government was perfectly justified in stating that the grants relied upon by the petitioners were fake grants and therefore, they have no right to challenge the lease of lands executed in favour of KSLTA.
59. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
60. The original records produced by the petitioners shall stand confiscated and shall be kept in the custody of the State Government for it to take any further action if it so desires.
61. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 151