K. Eshwar Prasad & Ors. vs State Of Karnataka & Ors.

PRESENT

AND

MR. K. ESHWAR PRASAD

R/AT: HAGARE, BELURU TALUK

MR. LOKESHA

R/AT: SHIVAYOGIPURA

MR. LAKSHMANA

^{Digitally signed by} AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS ^{PAVITHRA B} R/AT: HAGARE, BELURU TALUK

MR. NAGARAJU

R/AT: ANDALE, SHIVAYOGIPURA

MR. MANJU

R/AT: ANDALE, SHIVAYOGIPURA

MR. LOKESH

R/AT: ANDALE, SHIVAYOGIPURA

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI: SHIVAKUMAR N, ADVOCATE)

STATE OF KARNATAKA

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

SAKALESHPUR

THE TAHSILDAR

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR

MR. P.N. PADME GOWDA

MAJOR R/AT: PRASADIHALLI VILLAGE

MR. D.H. RAMANJINAPPA

MAJOR R/AT: SRI MAHADESHWARA NILAYA

MR MANJU SHETTY

(DEAD BY HIS LR's) 8(A). SMT. GOWRAMMA

R/AT: HAGARE VILLAGE

8(B). SRI. PALAKSHA

R/AT: HAGARE VILLAGE

8(C). SRI. RAVEESHA

R/AT: HAGARE VILLAGE

SRI. H.K. GOWTHAM GOWDA

R/AT: NO.48, GAVENAHALLI BYE-PASS

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT: PRAMODINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R5;

R6 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;

R7, R8 [A TO C] ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

13.12.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 5 RESPONDENT HEREIN ON 13.12.2018 IN MARANIPIR NO.177/2018-19 AT ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.

and CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA)

The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following reliefs:.

This petition is filed in the nature of public interest litigation. Petitioner Nos.1, 3 to 6 claim to be the villagers of the village adjacent to Shivayogipura and petitioner No.2 claims to be the villager of Shivayogipura. The principal contention of the petitioners is that, land measuring 1 acre 1 gunta in Sy.No.59 of Shivayogipura of Madihalli Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan District is a Government land, which is being used by the villagers for the benefit of live stock, so also, agricultural purposes. When that being the position, at the midnight on 13.07.2017, respondent No.6 made an attempt to close the tank by filling waste soil and which was resisted by the villagers. It is then, the petitioners came to know that respondent No.6 is claiming right over the aforesaid tank land on the basis of registered sale deed dated 02.08.2013 executed by respondent No.7.

It is the assertion of the petitioners that they had submitted a complaint to respondent No.3 on 14.07.2017, pursuant to which, respondent No.5 conducted a spot inspection on 10.12.2018 and submitted a report to respondent No.4 on 13.12.2018 observing that there are sale transactions in respect to the subject land. However, there is no sign of agricultural activities being carried on, an attempt is being made to fill the tank with the aid of tipper and tractor and further reported to verify the file relating to the grant, so also, genuineness of the grant and to take further action in the matter.

The first prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 5 to take appropriate action pursuant to the report dated 13.12.2018 and the second prayer is for consideration of the representation at Annexures-F, G and H.

During the pendancy of this writ petition, Sri H K Gowtham Gowda claiming to be the present owner of the aforementioned land has filed an application for impleading. The said application having been allowed, the impleading applicant is arrayed as respondent No.9 in the present writ petition. Along with the application for impleading, respondent No.9 has produced several revenue documents and three sale deeds dated 24.05.2007, 02.08.2013 and 08.11.2021. Respondent No.9 claims ownership over the subject land pursuant to the sale deed dated 08.11.2021.

It is the contention of respondent No.9 that the subject land was granted by respondent No.4 on 08.10.1968 in proceedings No.KDR 72/1963-64 in favour of respondent No.8. Pursuant to which, mutation proceedings was initiated and the name of respondent No.8 was mutated through MR No.2 of 1973-74 and all along the revenue records was standing in the name of respondent No.8/grantee.

It is further stated that proceedings of phodi and durasth was also undertaken in respect of the subject land in the year 2007. Respondent No.8 has sold the subject land in favour of respondent No.7 through sale deed dated 24.07.2007 after obtaining permission from the respondent No.4 on 24.05.2007. In turn, respondent No.7 has sold the subject land in favour of respondent No.6 through sale deed dated 02.08.2013, from whom, respondent No.9 claims to have purchased the subject land through registered sale deed dated 08.11.2021. It is also submitted that on two occasions, respondent No.4 has issued endorsements to the persons who have made similar complaint in the year 2018 and 2021 stating that there is no sign of existence of any tank in the land in question and durasth of the subject land has been carried out in terms of the order of grant and therefore, no action can be initiated.

When the matter was taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioners while re-iterating the facts and grounds urged in the writ petition contended that though the land was stated to have been granted way back in the year 1968 and several sale transactions, however, neither respondent No.9 or his predecessors in title have ever claimed possession of the subject land and the land in question had been used as a tank by the villagers and therefore, in the interest of the villagers, even if there is a grant, the same needs to be annuled.

Learned counsel for respondent No.9 has re-iterated the averments made in the application for impleading and also invited our attention to the documents enclosed to the application.

Confronting the order dated 16.10.2025 in this writ petition to the learned AGA, queried as to the stand of the State in respect of the complaint of the writ petitioners. In response to which, learned AGA submits that after filing this present writ petition and taking note of the contentions urged therein, so also, the order dated 16.10.2025, respondent No.4 has filed an appeal under Section 108 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules before respondent No.3 to enquire into the validity or otherwise of the grant of the subject land, which is a Government tank and pass necessary orders as regards the mutation proceedings effected in the year 1973-74 till 2021-22.

Learned AGA further contends that the appeal filed by respondent No.4 has been rejected by respondent No.3 on 04.08.2026 holding that since there are registered sale deeds in respect of land in question, he has no authority to examine the validity of the sale deeds and the dispute is of civil nature, and the writ petition-PIL is pending before this Court and therefore, he cannot pass any orders. She further submits that on 04.08.2026, respondent No.4 has submitted a proposal/petition before the respondent No.2 to consider the said communication as an appeal against the order passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner and pass necessary orders. Therefore, the matter is now pending before the Deputy Commissioner.

Learned AGA does not dispute the revenue documents produced by the respondent No.9. However, it is her submission that the alleged grant records are not available, but the mutation proceedings have been effected quoting the grant of land under darkasth. It is her further submission that since the matter is now pending before the Deputy Commissioner - respondent No.2, the entire issue brought before this Court in this PIL will be now adjudicated by the said authority. Therefore, further examination of the present writ petition to consider the prayer sought therein is unwarranted and the writ petitioners may also be relegated to approach the Deputy Commissioner in the proceedings that would be initiated pursuant to the petition/communication dated 04.08.2026 addressed by the respondent No.4 to the respondent No.2.

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.9 and learned AGA, and on perusal of the writ petition papers, application for impleading and the documents produced therein, so also, the documents submitted by the learned AGA before this Court, we are of the opinion that the validity or otherwise of the grant stated to have been made in the year 1968 cannot be adjudicated by this Court after lapse of nearly 60 years at the instance of the writ petitioners who claims to be the villagers of same village and adjacent village where the land is situated. Whether at this point in time, any proceedings for cancellation of the grant on the ground that the land is a Government land/Tank as per the revenue records at the relevant point in time, is a question which is required to be left open for consideration by the revenue authorities.

In view of the fact that the proceedings are now pending before the Deputy Commissioner pursuant to the petition/communication by respondent No.4, any finding at the hands of this Court in the present proceedings would influence the revenue authorities who are empowered to examine the validity or otherwise of the grant. Therefore, we do not find it necessary to enter upon the domain of the revenue authorities in the matter of initiation of proceedings for cancellation of grant or whether the authorities are empowered to initiate such proceedings at this distance of time when there are three sale transactions commencing from 2007 till 2021-22.

In the result, i) Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the writ petitioners to approach the Deputy Commissioner with a request to implead themselves in the proceedings that would be initiated pursuant to the petition/communication dated 04.08.2026 of respondent No.4 submitted to the respondent No.2.

ii) All the contentions urged by the petitioners, so also, respondent No.9 herein are left open to be considered by respondent No.2.

iii) We clarify that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions of the petitioners and respondent No.9 including the validity of grant, if any.

Sd/-(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-(T.P.VIVEKANANDA) JUDGE BGN