- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13
TH
DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 23110 OF 2022 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
SMT. POORNIMA K
W/O D.T. SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT NO.111
KSHAMAYADARITHRINILAY
DEVASANDRA
K.R.PURAM POST
BENGALURU-560 036
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MANMOHAN P.N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-01
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
OFFICE OF THE POLICE COMMISSIONER
NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
MAHADEVPUR DIVISON
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
NO.3, CHINMAYA MISSION HOSPITAL ROAD
HOYSALA NAGAR, INDIRNAGAR
BENGALURU-560 038.
4. THE POLICE INSPECTOR
WHITEFILED POLICE STATION
WHITEFIELD
BANGLAORE-560 066
5. SMT. NANJAMMA
D/O LATE P. ERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BENGALURU-560 066
6. SMT. MANJULA M.E
D/O LATE P. ERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BENGALURU-560 066
7. SMT. N.E. RAJESHWARI
D/O LATE P. ERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BENGALURU-560 066
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R7)
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
REVIEW AND RECALL THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2021 PASSED
BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P NO 569/2021 AND RESTOR E
W.P NO 569/2021 TO FILE (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-R).
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
CAV ORDER
1. In this Writ Petition, petitioner is assailing the Order
dated 12.01.2021 in W.P.No.569/2021 (Annexure-R)
passed by this Court and sought for review of the Order
dated 12.01.2021 passed in the above petition.
2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this Writ
Petition are that, one Akkayyamma (Akkamma) wife of
Anjanappa has been registered as an occupant under
Section 9 of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams
Abolition Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Inams
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
Act'), in respect of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.42
of Pattandur Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore, in case
No.35/1959-60 (Annexure-A). In this regard, endorsement
dated 21.02.1963 has been issued by the competent
authority as per Annexure-B. Thereafter, revenue records
transferred into the name of said Akkayyamma. The RTC
extracts transferred into the name of Akkayyamma and
her husband Anjanappa as per Annexure-D series. It is
further stated that, the husband of the said Akkayyamma
has sold the land in question in favour of one Smt.
Jayalakshmamma, as per registered Sale Deed dated
10.05.1991 (Annexure-F). Thereafter, the name of said
Smt. Jayalakshmamma was mutated in the revenue
records as per Annexure-G series. It is further stated that,
the petitioner herein had purchased the land in question
from said Smt. Jayalakshmamma as per registered Sale
Deed dated 09.09.2005 (Annexure-H) and revenue reco rd
is produced at Annexure-J. It is the case of the petitioner
that, at the time of conducting survey, the petitioner came
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
to know that the vendor of the petitioner was in
possession of land bearing Sy.No.156 after resurveying
the same as per the re-grant order dated 22.04.1970.
Hence, the petitioner filed appeal before the Joint Director
of Land Records in Appeal No.43/2017-18 challenging the
phodi, and the Joint Director of Land Records, by Order
dated 02.08.2017, (Annexure-K), cancelled the phodi of
the old survey No.42. It is further stated that, the
petitioner has filed W.P.No.25584/2018 before this Court,
seeking change of sketch as per the order of the Joint
Director of Land Records and this Court, vide Order dated
26.02.2019 (Annexure-L), directed the respondent -
revenue authorities to implement the Order dated
02.08.2017 passed by the Joint Director of Land Records.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, one Sri.
Erappa was making false claim in respect of the old
Sy.No.10 (new Sy.No.42) measuring to an extent of 3
acres of Pattandur Agrahara Village, without any right or
title in respect of the said land. It is stated that, the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
respondent Nos.5 to 7 are the legal heirs of late Erappa.
It is the case of the petitioner that, the said Erappa had
challenged the Order dated 02.08.2017 (Annexure-K)
passed by the Joint Director of Land Records in
R.P.No.11/2018-19 and the said order was questioned by
the petitioner in W.P.No.23398/2021 before this Court and
this Court, vide order dated 18.12.2021 (Annexure-M)
granted interim stay of the said order.
4. It is further stated in the Writ Petition that, the
vendor of the petitioner - Smt. Jayalakshmamma had filed
O.S.No.558/1998 before the competent Civil Court ag ainst
one Veerappa and the said suit came to be decreed in part
as per the Judgment and Decree dated 13.12.1999
(Annexure-N), wherein, the land in question in the present
Writ Petition is schedule-A in the aforementioned suit. It
is also stated that, late Eerappa has filed
W.P.No.4472/2020 before this Court, seeking phodi and
durust in respect of the land in question and this Court
disposed of the Writ Petition by order dated 30.03.2021
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
(Annexure-P), directing the respondent - authorities to
consider the claim of the petitioner therein. It is also
stated that, the said Erappa had filed O.S.No.1381/2005
against the vendor of the petitioner and the said suit came
to be decreed in part. It is further stated that, the
petitioner has filed O.S.No.25604/2018 against said
Erappa and the petitioner had withdrawn the suit for want
of jurisdiction. It is also stated that, the said Erappa had
filed W.P.No.569/2021 before this Court and in the said
petition, petitioner was arrayed as respondent No.5. This
Court, vide order dated 12.01.2021 (Annexure-R),
disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the
respondent - State to consider the representation made by
the petitioner therein, seeking police protection in respect
of the subject land in question. It is to be noted that, at
the time of disposal of the Writ Petition, the petitioner
herein has been deleted from array of parties. It is also
stated that, respondent Nos.5 to 7 have filed CCC
No.1000/2021 against the petitioner and the police
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
personnel, alleging disobedience of order produced at
Annexure-R and as such, the notice was ordered by this
Court. Pursuant to the same, the police came near the
schedule land of which the petitioner was in possession
and as such, petitioner has made a representation dated
24.08.2022 (Annexure-S). It is further stated that, the
Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk has issued endorsement
dated 28.06.2021 (Annexure-T), stating that the
respondent Nos.5 to 7 are not in possession of the
schedule land. It is further stated that, petitioner has
lodged complaint against the said Erappa and same was
registered as Crime No.190/2018 (Annexure-V) on the file
of Whitefield Police Station. It is the case of the petitioner
that, the petitioner being aggrieved by Order dated
12.01.2021 in W.P.No.549/2021 (Annexure-R), has
presented this Writ Petition, seeking review of the said
Order.
5. I have heard Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Manmohan P.N.,
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Gawthamdev C.
Ullal, learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.5 to 7, and Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to
4.
6. Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner contended that, this Court has committed an
error in providing police protection to the private
respondents in respect of the land in question and thereby
the private respondents are interfering with the peaceful
possession of schedule property by the petitioner herein,
and as such, if the private respondents claim to be owners
of the schedule land in question and have to implement
the order of injunction granted by the competent Civil
Court, as it is open for the private respondents to avail the
remedy under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC and not by fi ling
writ petition before this Court, therefore, in the
circumstances of the case, where dispute is with regard to
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
claiming right over the schedule land by both the
petitioner and the respondent Nos.5 to 7 and as such, this
Court ought to have relegated the parties to file suit for
declaration in respect of title over the property in question
and accordingly, sought for review of the impugned order.
7. Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner further contended that, the impugned order
passed by this Court is non est and contrary to the
principles of natural justice as no opportunity was
extended to the petitioner herein. It is further argued by
learned Senior Counsel that, the said late Erappa was not
in possession of the land in question and same was
suppressed before this Court and further the petitioner
herein was in possession of the land in question and
therefore, the said aspect has to be re-considered by this
Court. It is further agued by the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner by referring to the Judgment and Decree
in O.S.No.1381/2005, wherein the said suit came to be
decreed in part and by referring to paragraph No.11 of the
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
said Judgment at Annexure-Q, learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner submitted that, the property adjacent to the
schedule land bearing Sy.No.42 is land bearing Sy.No.156
belonging to the vendor of the petitioner and therefore,
sought for review of the order dated 12.01.2021 in
W.P.No.569/2021, produced at Annexure-R.
8. Per contra, Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondent Nos.5 to 7 argued by
referring to Order dated 08.12.2025 in W.P.No.3594/2022
passed by this Court and submitted that, the endorsement
issued by the Tahsildar dated 28.06.2021 (Annexure-T)
was quashed by this Court and the respondent -
authorities were directed to proceed with the phodi
proceedings and the question relating to title was made
subject to the result in O.S.No.24/2000 and as such,
sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
9. It is further contended by learned Senior Counsel for
the respondent Nos.5 to 7 that, Erappa had filed
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
application for rejection of suit in respect of the land
bearing Sy.No.42 in O.S.No.558/1998, which came to be
allowed by Order dated 13.12.1999 (Annexure-N) which
has reached finality and therefore, the petitioner has no
locus-standi to file the present Writ Petition. It is also
argued by learned Senior Counsel by referring to the
Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.24/2000 filed by Erappa
against the revenue officials, seeking declaration of
ownership by way of adverse possession in respect o f the
schedule property which came to be decreed in favou r of
Erappa declaring that he has perfected his rights over land
bearing Sy.No.42 of Pattandur Agrahara Village, by way of
adverse possession. Thereafter, the State Government
has filed R.A.No.83/2001 which came to be dismissed on
16.09.2001. The State Government has filed RSA
No.156/2007 before this Court and the appeal came t o be
dismissed on 13.06.2008 which came to be confirmed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.29520 of 20 08.
In this regard, learned Senior Counsel Sri. P.P. Hegde
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
argued that, the respondent Nos.5 to 7 have been
declared to be the owner in possession of the land bearing
Sy.No.42 of Pattandur Agrahara Village and as the same
has reached finality by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
therefore, it is contended that, the Writ Petition is not
maintainable and requires to be dismissed by this Court.
10. It is further argued by Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned
Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 7, by referring
to the various orders of this Court in CCC No.1000/2021
argued that, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner
seeking quashing of the earlier Order dated 12.01.2021 in
W.P.No.569/2021 is not maintainable and accordingly,
sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
11. Learned Additional Government Advocate appeari ng
for the respondent - State argued on the lines of the
submissions made by Sri.P.P. Hegde, learned Senior
Counsel for the private respondents.
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the
prayer made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is to
review and recall the order dated 12.01.2021 passed by
this Court in W.P.No.569/2021. In W.P.No.569/2021, the
prayer in the Writ Petition is to direct the respondent -
State to provide police protection to the petitioner in
respect of the schedule property by considering the
Annexures - A to C therein. In the said Writ Petition, the
petitioner herein has been arrayed as respondent No.5 and
for the reasons best known to the private respondents
herein, the respondent No.5 (petitioner in the present Writ
Petition) has been deleted as per order dated 12.01.2021.
It may be concluded that, the order impugned in this Writ
Petition is passed without hearing the petitioner herein. It
is also to be noted at paragraph 3 of the order, which
reads as under:
" 3. In the circumstances, this petition is disposed of
by directing respondents to consider
Annexure-C and
to take action in accordance with the law laid down
in Lalita Kumari's case and to accord necessary
protection required in aid of the Civil Court's decree."
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
(underlined by me)
13. This Court in W.P.No.569/2021, as per paragraph 3
of the order, directed the respondent - State to consider
the representation as per Annexure-C therein, in
accordance with law. The definition and applicability of
the word 'consider' has been discussed in detail by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of EMPLOYEES'
STATE INSURANCE CORPN. Vs. ALL INDIA ITDC
EMPLOYEES' UNION AND OTHERS reported in (2006)
4 SCC 257, and the relevant portion therein at
paragraphs 12 to 15 is extracted below:
"12. But it is really unnecessary to go into said
question because the order of the High Court really
did not give a positive direction. Relevant portion of
the learned single Judge's order which has been
extracted above, clearly goes to show that the
learned Single Judge left the matter to be decided by
the Corporation. The direction was to "consider" and
in that sense there was no positive direction.
13. " 14, We may, in this context, examine the
significance and meaning of a direction given by the
Court to "consider" a case. When a court directs an
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
authority to 'consider', it requires the authority to
apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the
case and then take a decision thereon in accordance
with law. There is a reason for a large number of Writ
Petitions filed in High Courts being disposed of with a
direction to "consider" the claim/case/representation
of the petitioner(s) in the Writ Petitions.
15. Where an order or action of the State or an
authority is found to be illegal, or in contravention of
prescribed procedure, or in breach of the rules of
natural justice, or arbitrary/unreasonable/irrational,
or prompted by mala fides or extraneous
consideration, or the result of abuse of power, such
action is open to judicial review. When the High Court
finds that the order or action requires interference
and exercises the power of judicial review, thereby
resulting in the action/order of the State or authority
being quashed, the High Court will not proceed to
substitute its own decision in the matter, as that will
amount to exercising appellate power, but require the
authority to 'consider' and decide the matter again.
The power of judicial review under Article
226 concentrates and lays emphasis on the decision
making process, rather than the decision itself.
16. The High Courts also direct authorities to
'consider' , in a different category of cases. Where an
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
authority vested with the power to decide a matter,
fails to do so in spite of a request, the person
aggrieved approaches the High Court, which in
exercise of power of judicial review, directs the
authority to 'consider' and decide the matter. In such
cases, while exercising the power of judicial review,
the High Court directs 'consideration' without
examining the facts or the legal question(s) involved
and without recording any findings on the issues. The
High Court may also direct the authority to 'consider'
afresh, where the authority had decided a matter
without considering the relevant facts and
circumstances, or by taking extraneous or irrelevant
matters into consideration. In such cases also, High
Court may not examine the validity or tenability of
the claim on merits, but require the authority to do
so.
17. Where the High Court finds the decision-
making process erroneous and records its findings as
to the manner in which the decision should be made,
and then directs the authority to 'consider' the
matter, the authority will have to consider and decide
the matter in the light of findings or observations of
the Court. But where the High Court without
recording any findings, or without expressing any
view, merely directs the authority to 'consider' the
matter, the authority will have to consider the matter
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
in accordance with law, with reference to the facts
and circumstances of the case, its power not being
circumscribed by any observations or findings of the
Court.
18. We may also note that sometimes the High
Courts dispose of matter merely with a direction to
the authority to 'consider' the matter without
examining the issue raised even though the facts
necessary to decide the correctness of the order are
available. Neither pressure of work nor the
complexity of the issue can be a reason for the Court,
to avoid deciding the issue which requires to be
decided, and disposing of the matter with a direction
to 'consider' the matter afresh.
19. There are also several instances where
unscrupulous petitioners with the connivance of
'pliable' authorities have misused the direction 'to
consider' issued by court. We may illustrate by an
example. A claim, which is stale, time-barred or
untenable, is put forth in the form of a
representation. On the ground that the authority has
not disposed of the representation within a
reasonable time the person making the
representation approaches the High Court with an
innocuous prayer to direct the authority to 'consider'
and dispose of the representation. When the Court
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
disposes of the petition with a direction to 'consider',
the authority grants the relief, taking shelter under
the order of the Court directing it to 'consider' .
Instances are also not wanting where authorities,
unfamiliar with the process and practice relating to
writ proceedings and the nuances of judicial review,
have interpreted or understood the order 'to consider'
as directing grant of relief sought in the
representation and consequently granting reliefs
which otherwise could not have been granted. Thus,
action of the authorities granting undeserving relief,
in pursuance of orders to 'consider', may be on
account of ignorance, or on account of bona fide
belief that they should grant relief in view of Court's
direction to 'consider' the claim or on account of
collusion/connivance between the person making the
representation and the authority deciding it. ….
20. Therefore, while disposing of Writ Petitions with
a direction to 'consider', there is a need for the High
Court to make the direction clear and specific. The
order should clearly indicate whether the High Court
is recording any finding about the entitlement of the
petitioner to the relief or whether the petition is being
disposed of without examining the claim on merits…."
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
14. The aforesaid aspects were highlighted recently
in A.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors. v. G. Srinivas Reddy and
Ors. (AIR 2006 SCW 1108).
15. It is true as contended by learned counsel for
the Corporation that the use of the expression
"should" gives a scope for entertaining a doubt that
there was a positive direction. It is, therefore,
necessary to clarify that what learned Single Judge in
the direction said was only consideration by the
Corporation and there was no positive direction. In
that view of the matter the Corporation shall now
give opportunity to the concerned parties i.e.
respondents 1, 2 & 3 in each case to present their
respective stand before the Corporation so that after
consideration necessary order can be passed in
accordance with law. We express no opinion on that
aspect. The appeals are disposed of accordingly with
no order as to costs."
(underlined by me)
14. It is also to be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. M.K.
SARKAR reported in (2010) 2 SCC 59, at paragraphs 14
to 16 of the Judgment, has held as under:
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
"14. The order of the Tribunal allowing the first
application of respondent without examining the
merits, and directing the appellants to consider his
representation has given rise to unnecessary
litigation and avoidable complications. The ill-effects
of such directions have been considered by this Court
in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining [(2008)
10 SCC 115 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 961] : (SCC pp.
122-23, para 9)
“9. The courts/tribunals proceed on the assumption,
that every citizen deserves a reply to his
representation. Secondly, they assume that a mere
direction to consider and dispose of the
representation does not involve any ‘decision’ on
rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realise
the consequences of such a direction to ‘consider’. If
the representation is considered and accepted, the
ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have
got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the
direction to ‘consider’. If the representation is
considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an
application/Writ Petition, not with reference to the
original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the
rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the
cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the
rejection of representation and for grant of the relief
claimed in the representation. The tribunals/High
Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
ignoring the huge delay preceding the
representation, and proceed to examine the claim on
merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of
limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored.”
15. When a belated representation in regard to a
“stale” or “dead” issue/dispute is considered and
decided, in compliance with a direction by the
court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision
cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of
action for reviving the “dead” issue or time-barred
dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches
should be considered with reference to the original
cause of action and not with reference to the date on
which an order is passed in compliance with a court's
direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a
representation issued without examining the merits,
nor a decision given in compliance with such
direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the
delay and laches.
16. A court or tribunal, before directing
“consideration” of a claim or representation should
examine whether the claim or representation is with
reference to a “live” issue or whether it is with
reference to a “dead” or “stale” issue. If it is with
reference to a “dead” or “stale” issue or dispute, the
court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If
the court or tribunal deciding to direct
“consideration” without itself examining the merits, it
should make it clear that such consideration will be
without prejudice to any contention relating to
limitation or delay and laches. Even if the court does
not expressly say so, that would be the legal position
and effect."
15. Perusal of the aforementioned decisions would
indicate that, direction to "consider" representation does
not amount to give positive direction to the respondent -
authorities to do a particular act and thereby it is for the
respondent - authorities to consider the case of the litigant
public in accordance with law and therefore, it is to be held
that this Court at paragraph No.3 in W.P.No.569/2021,
directed the respondent - authorities to consider the case
of the petitioner therein and it is not a positive direction to
provide police direction. In the backdrop of these aspects,
on careful examination of the writ papers would indicate
that, the petitioner claiming right over a property as per
the registered Sale Deed dated 09.09.2005 (Annexure -H),
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
the original title holder is one Akkayyamma as per the re-
grant order by the Special Deputy Commissioner for
Abolition of Inams, Bangalore in case No.35/1959-60
(Annexure-A), under the provisions of the Inams Act. The
private respondent Nos.5 to 7 claiming right over the land
in question as per the Judgment and Decree dated
27.01.2001 in O.S.No.24/2000 (Annexure-R1). The said
suit is filed by Erappa, seeking declaration in respect of
the land bearing Sy.No.10 of Pattanduru Agrahara village,
Bangalore South Taluk, and in the said suit, defendants
are the State revenue authorities and the petitioner herein
or her vendor are not parties therein. It is not in dispute
that, the defendants therein have entered appearance in
the suit, however, have not filed the written statement,
nor contested the matter on merits. The said suit came to
be decreed, declaring that Erappa is the owner of the
schedule land by adverse possession and has perfected
the title by uninterrupted physical possession. The said
Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court was
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
confirmed in R.A.No.83/2001 (Annexure-R2) and in RSA
No.156/2007 (Annexure-R3) and thereafter, by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.29520 of 2008
(Annexure-R4). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
dismissed the Special Leave Petition and the operative
portion of the order dated 16.12.2008 reads as under:
" The Special Leave Petition is dismissed."
16. On careful examination of the claim made by the
petitioner based on the registered Sale Deed and the
Order of re-grant made under the Inams Act, in favo ur of
Akkayyamma as well as the claim made by the private
respondents which is based on the relief of adverse
possession in the suit would indicate that, there is fraud
committed by the petitioner therein (private respondents)
in W.P.No.569/2021, by deleting the petitioner herein in
the Writ Petition and have obtained the order dated
12.01.2021 behind the back of the petitioner. At this
juncture, it is relevant to cite the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of LACHHMAN DASS Vs.
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
JAGAT RAM AND OTHERS reported in (2007) 10 SCC
448 wherein it is held that, when the fraud is apparent on
face of the record, pleadings are not necessary to be
looked into. In this regard, it is relevant to cite the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P.
CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU (DEAD) BY LRS. Vs.
JAGANNATH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS reported in
(1994) 1 SCC 1, wherein, paragraphs 5 and 6 read as
under:
"5. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent
error. The short question before the High Court was
whether in the facts and circumstances of this case,
Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by
playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however,
went haywire and made observations which are
wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High
Court that “there is no legal duty cast upon the
plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove
it by true evidence”. The principle of “finality of
litigation” cannot be pressed to the extent of such an
absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the
hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are
meant for imparting justice between the parties. One
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
who comes to the court, must come with clean
hands. We are constrained to say that more often
than not, process of the court is being abused.
Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers
and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life
find the court-process a convenient lever to retain
the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to
say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood,
has no right to approach the court. He can be
summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
6. The facts of the present case leave no manner
of doubt that Jagannath obtained the preliminary
decree by playing fraud on the court. A fraud is an
act of deliberate deception with the design of
securing something by taking unfair advantage of
another. It is a deception in order to gain by
another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an
advantage. Jagannath was working as a clerk with
Chunilal Sowcar. He purchased the property in the
court auction on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. He had,
on his own volition, executed the registered release
deed (Ex. B-15) in favour of Chunilal Sowcar
regarding the property in dispute. He knew that the
appellants had paid the total decretal amount to his
master Chunilal Sowcar. Without disclosing all these
facts, he filed the suit for the partition of the
property on the ground that he had purchased the
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
property on his own behalf and not on behalf of
Chunilal Sowcar. Non-production and even non-
mentioning of the release deed at the trial is
tantamount to playing fraud on the court. We do not
agree with the observations of the High Court that
the appellants-defendants could have easily
produced the certified registered copy of Ex. B-15
and non-suited the plaintiff. A litigant, who
approaches the court, is bound to produce all the
documents executed by him which are relevant to
the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in
order to gain advantage on the other side then he
would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well
as on the opposite party."
17. In the case of MEGHMALA AND OTHERS Vs. G.
NARASIMHA REDDY AND OTHERS reported in 2010
AIR SCW 5281 at paragraphs 28 to 36, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held as under:
"Fraud/Misrepresentation:-
28. It is settled proposition of law that where an
applicant gets an order/office by making
misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the
competent authority, such order cannot be sustained
in the eye of the law.
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
“Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or
temporal.” (Vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by
LRs. v. Jagannath (dead) by LRs and Others AIR
1994 SC 853). In Lazarus Estates
Ltd. v. Beasley 1956 All. E.R.349), the Court
observed without equivocation that "no judgment of
a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to
stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud
unravels everything.”
29. In Andhra Pradesh State Financial
Corporation. v. M/S. GAR Re-Rolling Mills [(1994) 2
SCC 647, this Court observed that a writ court, while
exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should not act as
to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud as the courts
are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith.
“Equity is always known to defend the law from
crafty evasions and new subtleties invented to evade
law.”
30. In Smt. Shrisht Dhawan v. M/s. Shaw Brothers.
AIR 1992 SC 1555], it has been held as under:
“20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most
solemn proceedings in any civilised system of
jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human
conduct.”
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
31. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra
Singh & Others AIR 2000 SC 1165, this Court
observed that “Fraud and justice never dwell
together” (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is
a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper
over all these centuries.
32. The ratio laid down by this Court in various cases
is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear
the fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud
or made misrepresentation and in such
circumstances the Court should not perpetuate the
fraud. (See Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential
School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [(1990) 3
SCC 655; Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran [1995 Supp
(4) SCC 100]; Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan v. Girdharilal Yadav (2004) 6 SCC
325; State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash
Babulalsing Parmar (2007) 1 SCC 80; Himadri
Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. Coal Tar Refining Co.
AIR 2007 SC 2798; and Mohammed
Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751].
33. Fraud is an intrinsic, collateral act, and fraud of
an egregious nature would vitiate the most solemn
proceedings of courts of justice. Fraud is an act of
deliberate deception with a design to secure
something, which is otherwise not due. The
- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
expression “fraud” involves two elements, deceit and
injury to the person deceived. It is a cheating
intended to get an advantage. [Vide Dr.
Vimla v. Delhi Admnistration AIR 1963 SC
1572; Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) (P)
Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 550; State of A.P. v. T.
Suryachandra Rao (2005) 6 SCC 149; K.D.
Sharma v. SAIL (2008) 12 SCC 481; and Central
Bank of India v. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir (2008)
13 SCC 170]
34. An act of fraud on court is always viewed
seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to
deprive the rights of the others in relation to a
property would render the transaction void ab initio.
Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a
given case a deception may not amount to fraud,
fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any
affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or
saved by the application of any equitable doctrine
including res judicata. Fraud is proved when it is
shown that a false representation has been made (i)
knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii)
recklessly, careless whether it be true or false.
Suppression of a material document would also
amount to a fraud on the court. [Vide S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu (1994) 1 SCC 1;
Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family
- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
Trust [(1996) 3 SCC 310; Ram Chandra
Singh v. Savitri Devi (2003) 8 SCC 319; Roshan
Deen v. Preeti Lal [(2002) 1 SCC 100; Ram Preeti
Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School & Intermediate
Education (2003) 8 SCC 311; and Ashok Leyland
Ltd. v. State of T.N. (2004) 3 SCC 1]
35. In Kinch v. Walcott (1929 AC 482, it has been
held that: “… mere constructive fraud is not, at all
events after long delay, sufficient but such a
judgment will not be set aside upon mere proof that
the judgment was obtained by perjury”.
Thus, detection/discovery of constructive fraud at
a much belated stage may not be sufficient to set
aside the judgment procured by perjury.
36. From the above, it is evident that even in judicial
proceedings, once a fraud is proved, all advantages
gained by playing fraud can be taken away. In such
an eventuality the questions of non-executing of the
statutory remedies or statutory bars like doctrine of
res judicata are not attracted. Suppression of any
material fact/document amounts to a fraud on the
court. Every court has an inherent power to recall its
own order obtained by fraud as the order so obtained
is non est."
- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
18. It is to be noted that, the petitioner in the present
Writ Petition is claiming title in respect of the subject land,
where the private respondents are also claiming identical
right. If such being the case, there was no occasion for the
petitioner in W.P.No.569/2021 to delete the petitioner
herein at the time of disposal of the Writ Petition on
12.01.2021 (Annexure-R). It is also forthcoming from the
writ papers that the subject land is the subject matter in
O.S.No.558/1998 filed by the vendor of the petitioner -
Smt. Jayalakshmamma, O.S.No.1381/2005 filed by Erap pa
seeking relief of permanent injunction, O.S.No.24/2000
filed by Erappa seeking declaration based on adverse
possession and O.S.No.25604/2018 filed by the petitioner
herein against Erappa and others. In the backdrop of
these aspects, as there are four suits connected with the
same subject land and that apart, the petitioner herein is
claiming right over the property based on the registered
Sale Deed and the order of re-grant made in favour of
Akkayyamma (erstwhile owner of the property) and
- 34 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
therefore, this Court while passing the order at Annexure-
R ought not to have allowed the private respondents to
delete the petitioner herein in W.P.No.569/2021. Though
the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private
respondents submitted that the claim made by the pr ivate
respondents is based on Judgment and Decree in
O.S.No.24/2000 which ultimately confirmed by the Ho n'ble
Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.29520 of 2008 (Annexure-
R4), however, the said special leave petition came to be
dismissed in limine and not on merits. It is also to be
noted that, suit is filed by Erappa against the respondent -
State, wherein, the said suit was not contested by the
defendant - State by filing written statement or on merits.
19. At this stage, it is also relevant to cite the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF
ODISHA AND OTHERS Vs. SULEKH CHANDRA
PRADHAN AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2022 SC
2030, wherein at paragraphs 36 and 37, it is held as
under:
- 35 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
"36. That leaves us with the submission of Shri R.
Balasubramanian, learned Senior Counsel that since
the view taken by the Tribunal has been affirmed by
the High Court and the special leave petition
challenging the same has been dismissed, the view
of the Tribunal has become final. In this respect,
reliance could be placed on the judgment of this
Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala and
another, wherein this Court has held as under:
“27. A petition for leave to appeal to this Court may
be dismissed by a non-speaking order or by a
speaking order. Whatever be the phraseology
employed in the order of dismissal, if it is a non-
speaking order i.e. it does not assign reasons for
dismissing the special leave petition, it would neither
attract the doctrine of merger so as to stand
substituted in place of the order put in issue before it
nor would it be a declaration of law by the Supreme
Court under Article 141 of the Constitution for there
is no law which has been declared. If the order of
dismissal be supported by reasons then also the
doctrine of merger would not be attracted because
the jurisdiction exercised was not an appellate
jurisdiction but merely a discretionary jurisdiction
refusing to grant leave to appeal. We have already
dealt with this aspect earlier. Still the reasons stated
by the Court would attract applicability of Article 141
- 36 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
of the Constitution if there is a law declared by the
Supreme Court which obviously would be binding on
all the courts and tribunals in India and certainly the
parties thereto. The statement contained in the order
other than on points of law would be binding on the
parties and the court or tribunal, whose order was
under challenge on the principle of judicial discipline,
this Court being the Apex Court of the country. No
court or tribunal or parties would have the liberty of
taking or canvassing any view contrary to the one
expressed by this Court. The order of the Supreme
Court would mean that it has declared the law and in
that light the case was considered not fit for grant of
leave.
The declaration of law will be governed by Article 141
but still, the case not being one where leave was
granted, the doctrine of merger does not apply. The
Court sometimes leaves the question of law open. Or
it sometimes briefly lays down the principle, may be,
contrary to the one laid down by the High Court and
yet would dismiss the special leave petition. The
reasons given are intended for purposes of Article
141. This is so done because in the event of merely
dismissing the special leave petition, it is likely that
an argument could be advanced in the High Court
that the Supreme Court has to be understood as not
to have differed in law with the High Court.”
- 37 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
37. It is thus clear that a mere dismissal of the
special leave petition would not mean that the view
of the High Court has been approved by this Court.
As such, the contention in that regard is rejected.
(emphasis supplied)
20. Following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the above case, even if the suit was
decreed in favour of the plaintiff in O.S. No.24/2000 filed
against the defendant-State and neither the petitioner nor
the vendor of the petitioner - Smt. Jayalakshmamma , nor
the original grantee of the land - Smt. Akkayyamma were
party to the said suit in O.S.No.24/2000 and these aspects
of the matter ought to have been considered by this Court
while disposing the W.P.No.569/2021. It is also to be
noted that, a competent Civil Court has already decreed
the suit in O.S.No.558/1998 (Annexure-N) in favour of the
vendor of the petitioner herein - Smt. Jayalakshmamma,
wherein, the subject land is involved in the above suit. At
this juncture, it is relevant to mention that, this Court in
W.P.No.3594/2022 filed by the private respondents herein
- 38 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
against the respondent - State and the petitioner herein,
disposed of on 08.12.2025, held that the contentions of
the parties are kept open as to the title dispute. Therefore,
I am of the opinion that, the arguments advanced by the
learned Senior Counsel for the respondents cannot be
accepted particularly referring to various orders passed in
contempt proceedings, as the order impugned in this
petition is obtained by the private respondents behind the
back of the petitioner herein and therefore, I find force in
the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner to review the order impugned
in this Writ Petition.
21. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i)
Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii)
The order dated 12.01.2021 in W.P.No.569/2021
(Annexure-R) passed by this Court is hereby
recalled and the W.P.No.569/2021 is restored on
file. It is to be noted that, it is open for the
- 39 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:1920
WP No. 23110 of 2022
petitioner herein to get impleaded in the above
Writ Petition, if so advised, and contest the matter
on merits.
(iii)
The interim order dated 21.11.2022 passed in this
Writ Petition shall continue till the restoration of
the W.P.No.569/2021.
(iv)
In view of allowing the Writ Petition on merits, the
pending applications if any, do not survive for
consideration.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
sac
List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....