1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 08

TH

DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.4937 OF 2024 (KLR – RES)

BETWEEN:

THE NTI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,

BEING A REGISTERED CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY

(UNDER KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE

SOCIETIES ACT, 1959)

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT

NO.84, “SUN SMILE”, 1

ST

FLOOR,

8

TH

CROSS, SERPENTINE ROAD,

KUMARA PARK WEST,

BENGALURU – 560 020.

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/

CHIEF EXECUTIVE

SRI PRATAPACHAND RATHOD

... PETITIONER

(BY SMT.NAYANA TARA B.G., ADVOCATE)

AND

:

1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE

KANDAYA BHAVAN

2

K.G ROAD,

BENGALURU – 560 009.

2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION,

KANDAYA BHAVAN

K.G.ROAD,

BENGALURU – 560 009.

3 . SPECIAL TAHASILDAR

BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK

YELAHANKA

BENGALURU – 560 064.

4 . SRI K.V.RAMANJANAPPA

AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

S/O LATE VEERAPPA,

RESIDING AT: KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE,

GOVT. SCHOOL ROAD,

YELAHANKA HOBLI,

BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) DISTRICT – 560 092.

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

4.A SRI SHIVANANJEGOWDA

S/O K.V.RAMANJANAPPA

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

R/AT NO.758, GOVT. SCHOOL ROAD

OPP. GOVT. SCHOOL

KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 092.

IMPLEADED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 05.06.2025

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SESHU V., HCGP FOR R1 TO 3;

SMT S.SUSHEELA, SR. ADVOCATE A/W

SRI NAGESH VINAY S., ADVOCATE FOR R-4 (A))

3

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FO R

RECORDS OF RP NO. 201/2020 BEFORE THE R-1; QUASH TH E

ORDER DTD 25.10.2023 IN RP NO. 201/2020 PASSED BY T HE R-1

AT ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE ORDER DTD 03.06.2016 IN

RA(BNA)NO. 60/2016-17 PASSED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE -B;

DIRECT THE R-3 TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER

SOCIETY IN THE REVENUE RECORDS IN RESPECT OF SY NO. 165/2

MEASURING 29 GUNTAS IN KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHAN KA

HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, T HE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner/NTI Housing Co-operative Society (h ereinafter

referred to as ‘the Society’ for short) is at the doors of this Court

seeking the following prayers:

“(a) Call for records of RP No.201 of 2020 before t he

respondent No.1;

(b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other order, writ or

direction of similar nature quashing the order dated

25-10-2023 in RP No.201 of 2020 passed by the

respondent No.1 at Annexure-A;

(c) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other order, writ or

direction of similar nature quashing the order dated

4

3.06.2016 in RA (BNA) No.60/2016-17 passed by the

respondent No.2 at Annexure-B;

(d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, ord er or

direction of similar nature directing the respondent

No.3 to enter the name of the petitioner Society in the

revenue records in respect of Survey No.165/2

measuring 29 guntas in Kodigehalli Village, Yelahanka

Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk;

(e) Grant any other relief that this Hon’ble Court deems fit

in the facts and circumstances of the present case in

the interest of justice.”

2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

2.1. The petitioner is a Co-operative Society. The State

Government issued a preliminary notification on 03- 01-1985 in

respect of the subject property seeking to acquire the lands. A final

notification thereon was issued on 22-09-1986. Further notification

under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in

respect of the said property delivering possession of the property to

the hands of the Society on 05-11-1992. This is challenged in Writ

Petition No.2501 of 1996 before this Court. The said writ petition

comes to be dismissed upholding the acquisition proceedings.

5

2.2. The said order came to be challenged before t he Division

Bench in Writ Appeal No.7940 of 1996, which also co mes to be

dismissed by an order dated 09-12-1998 upholding th e order of the

learned single Judge, thereby affirming the acquisition proceedings.

When things stood thus, the 4

th

respondent files Writ Petition

No.47009-47010 of 2001 calling in question katha ma de in favour

of the Society. The said writ petition comes to be withdrawn

reserving liberty to submit a representation. The 4

th

respondent

then, long after the acquisition and handing over of the property to

the hands of the Society, submits a representation to drop his lands

from acquisition.

2.3. The State Government, by an order dated 30-01- 1999,

drops the said property from acquisition which was challenged by

the Society in Writ Petition No.6578 of 1999. In the course of the

proceedings, it is the submission in the petition, that the State

Government had indicated that possession of the pro perty was

handed over to the Society by its order dated 20-04-1999. The writ

petition then comes to be withdrawn. The 4

th

respondent again

files another writ petition in Writ Petition No.32641 of 2002. The

6

learned single Judge allowed the writ petition in terms of the order

dated 06-07-2009, on a short point that the land owners were not

heard prior to passing of the order of handing over of the property

to the Society.

2.4. The allottees of sites formed in the said property and

other properties which are subject matter of order dated

30-01-1999 preferred Writ Petition No.29555-29570 o f 2010.

During its pendency, another writ petition comes to be filed which

was tagged along with this, in Writ Petition No.38771 of 2014 all

calling in question Government order dated 30-01-19 99 and to

review the order that was passed on 06-07-2009 in W rit Petition

No.32641 of 2002 among other prayers. The said wri t petitions

come to be disposed by an order dated 25-07-2019 r ecalling the

order dated 6-07-2009 passed in Writ Petition No.32 641 of 2002

and restoring the same to the file. The other prayers were also kept

open for adjudication. In terms of the said order, the Government

order dated 20-04-1999 passed by the State Governme nt which

was challenged in the aforesaid Writ Petition Nos. 32641 of 2002

stood restored and the same is pending.

7

2.5. As observed hereinabove, on 20-04-1999, in ter ms of a

notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 it

is the averment that the property remained in posse ssion and

enjoyment of the Society and its allottees. In terms of the order

dated 06-07-2009 passed in Writ Petition No.32641 of 2002, the 4

th

respondent approaches the 3

rd

respondent to change the mutation

in respect of the property in dispute in favour of the 4

th

respondent,

on the score that the 4

th

respondent had inherited the said property

from his deceased wife Munithayamma. Respondent No .3 did not

effect the same. Therefore, the 4

th

respondent files an appeal under

Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (‘ the Act’ for

short). The appeal is allowed and the 2

nd

respondent direct the 3

rd

respondent to change the khata in the name of the 4

th

respondent

on the basis of inheritance. Aggrieved by the said order, the

petitioner prefers a revision petition in R.P.201/2 020 and the

revision petition comes to be rejected. It is this that is called in

question in the subject petition.

3. Heard Smt. Narayana Tara B.G., learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner; Sri Seshu V., learned High Court Government

8

Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Smt. S .Susheela,

learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitione r

Smt. Narayana Tara B.G., would vehemently contend t hat the

appeal filed under Section 136(2) of the Act clearly relies on the

judgment dated 06-07-2009 passed in Writ Petition N o.32641 of

2002, which on the date the 2

nd

respondent passed the order, had

been recalled. There was no order in favour of the 4

th

respondent

to seek change in mutation. The same error is commi tted by the

Revisional Authority as well. She would therefore, contend that on

this short score, apart from merits that the petitioner has in the

case at hand, the writ petition is to be allowed and the orders have

to be set at naught, as those writ petitions which were restored are

still pending adjudication at the hands of this Court.

5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Smt. S. Susheela

appearing for the 4

th

respondent would vehemently contend that

possession of lands was taken or otherwise is the subject matter in

other petitions. But, as far as this respondent is concerned, he

9

would be entitled for certain amount of land and it is that land that

was the subject matter of proceedings under the Act. No fault can

be found with the order passed by the Authorities. She would seek

dismissal of the petition.

6. The learned High Court Government Pleader would also toe

the lines of the learned senior counsel for the 4

th

respondent in

contending that in terms of the final notification, 29 guntas of land

appears to have been left out and, therefore, the o rder was

unsustainable. On a repeated query to verify the do cuments, the

learned High Court Government Pleader would accept that no parcel

of land is left out and would leave the decision to the Court.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the su bmissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have per used the

material on record.

8. The aforesaid narrated facts are not in dispute . The issue

lies in a narrow compass as to whether the orders impugned - one

10

passed by the Assistant Commissioner/2

nd

respondent under

Section 136(2) of the Act and the other by the 1

st

respondent

rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner deserve to be

sustained.

9. A little history, albeit at the periphery, is required to be

noticed. The genesis of the problem dates back to 1985 when a

preliminary notification comes to be issued in respect of the subject

property and final notification later on 22-09-1986. On 4-11-1992 a

Notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

comes to be issued and possession of the said prope rty is handed

over to the Society on 5-11-1992. The said acquisition comes to be

challenged before this Court by filing several writ petitions and a

few of them are germane to be noticed. The Society had preferred a

writ petition with regard to possession in terms of the Notification

under Section 16(2) in which the 4

th

respondent was a party. The

writ petition comes to be disposed of recording the submission of

the Government that possession is handed over to th e Society in

terms of its order dated 06-07-1999. The order reads as follows:

11

“Learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1

st

respondent has filed a memo stating that the Govern ment

has handed over possession of lands to the petitioner.

Petitioner submits that in view of the memo, he does

not press the writ petition.

Memo is taken on record.

Writ petition dismissed as not pressed.”

The order was passed on the memo filed by the Gover nment.

Later, writ petition is filed in Writ Petition No.32641 of 2002 by the

4

th

respondent. The said writ petition comes to be allowed by the

following order:

“…. …. ….

6. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Annexure-

L communication is set aside only in so far as petitioner 1 to

3 are concerned. It is open to the parties to work out their

remedies before the appropriate authority in case the State

Government proceeds with the matter, it shall give an

opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and p ass a

reasoned order.”

The writ petition comes to be allowed on a short sc ore that land

owners were not heard. Subsequently, writ petition s come to be

filed by other land owners in Writ Petition Nos. 29555-29570 of

2010 connected with Writ Petition No.38771 of 2014. The said writ

petitions come to be disposed of by the following order:

12

“….. …. ….

25. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of

the considered opinion that the order dated ** 06.07.2019

passed in W.P.No.32641/2002 is required to be recalled and

is accordingly recalled. W.P.No.32641/2002 is resto red to

file. List W.P.No.32641/2002 for hearing next week.

W.P.Nos.29555-70/2010 and W.P.No.38771/2014 are par tly

allowed in so far as the challenge to the order dat ed

***06.07.2009 passed in W.P.No.32641/2002 is concerned.

The other prayers sought for in W.P.Nos.29555-70/2010 and

W.P.No.38771/2014 are kept open for adjudication in

W.P.No.32641/2002. The petitioners in W.P.No. 32641 /2002

shall array the instant petitioners as party respondents in the

writ petition and the same shall be heard and disposed off in

accordance with law.”

The order dated 06-07-2009 which had allowed the pe tition setting

aside the acquisition on the score that land owners were not heard

was recalled and it was restored to file. It is said that the said

petition is still pending.

PRESENT PROCEEDINGS:

10. The 4

th

respondent approaches the 3

rd

respondent/

Tahsildar seeking change in mutation entries on a twin strength –

one that he has inherited the property and the othe r the order

dated 06-07-2009 passed in Writ Petition No.32641 o f 2002

allowing the writ petition. The Tahsildar refuses to change mutation

13

entry ostensibly on the score that right of the 4

th

respondent had

stood extinguished. This is challenged by the 4

th

respondent by

filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner under Section

136(2) of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner allows the appeal by

the following order: “The above appeal preferred under section 136(2) of

the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 (hereinafter re ferred

to as the 'Act') challenging the order in M.R.No.H5 /2015-

2016, in respect of the property in survey No.165/2 ,

measuring 0-29 guntas out of 0-32 guntas, situated at

Kodigehalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North (Addl)

Taluk (hereinafter referred to as the 'said property/ies').

1. The delay in filing the above appeal is condoned and the

matter has taken up for final disposal.

2. The appellant submits that the wife of the appe llant

namely Munithayamma was the owner and khatedar of

the property in survey No.165/2, measuring 0-29

guntas out of 0-32 guntas, situated at Kodigehalli

village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North (Addl) Taluk

and the said Munithayamma wife of K.V.Ramanjinappa

was died and the appellant being the husband of the

said K.V.Munithayamma has filed an application for

change of khata in his name on the basis of inheritance.

But the respondent authority has rejected to effect the

mutation. Hence, the abode appeal.

3. Heard the arguments of the appellant and posted the

above appeal for orders.

4. I have perused the entire pleadings and the documents

furnished by the appellant.

5. The RTC extracts produced by the appellant show s that

the said Munithayamma wife of K.V.Ramanjinappa is the

khatedar of the property In survey No. 165/2,

14

measuring 0-29 guntas out of 0-32 guntas, situated

at kodigehalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North

(Addl) Taluk and the Genealogical Tree produced by the

appellant shows that the appellant is the husband of the

deceased Smt.Munithayamma - the present khatedar

and the death certificate produced by the appellant

shows that the said Smt. Munithayamma was expired.

Therefore, the respondent ought to have transferred the

khata in the name of the appellant by way of

interitance.

6. In view of the above mentioned facts and the observations

made, I proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The appeal of the appellants is hereby allowed.

The Tahasildar, Bengaluru North (Addl) Taluk,

Yelahanka, Bengaluru is hereby directed to effect t he

mutation and transfer the khata in the name of the appellant

by way of inheritance in respect of the property in survey

No.165/2, measuring 0-29 guntas, situated at Kodige halli

village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North (Addl) Ta luk, in

accordance with law.

Dictated to the stenographer, the typescript edited by me,

corrected and then pronounced in open court on 3

rd

day of June 2016.

Sd/-

(K.RANGANATH)

Assistant Commissioner

Bengaluru North Sub-Division

Bengaluru.”

The Assistant Commissioner does not proceed to noti ce any order

passed by this Court in any of the writ petitions, but restricts his

order to 29 guntas in Sy.No.165/2 and directs khata to be changed

15

in the name of the 4

th

respondent. This is challenged by the

petitioner before the 1

st

respondent/Deputy Commissioner by filing

a revision petition. In the revision petition the D eputy

Commissioner passes the following order: BETW N: ADHHO 'DLHOMRJHOU SICD.GPV nDexu rD-ath NGsIl,i M-w ªÀÄvÀÄÛ

pAixPonid SICD.GPVcDmHOyfAi ಎಂದು sbvgM/OyfAi.

2) 56ೇಷ SICD.GP,DGnD789: NGsIl,i ;$ಾಂಕ:15-04-1991ರ <ೕ=ೆ

SICD.GPVªÁzÀ s.yVO> ?CDf3y7JHOU ಬAೆB (G 16(2) ರ NV.u NGsIl,iuVO>

'iIHRJHOUCkO h3/O@HOyfAi.

3) N: ADHHO wDJHOU3Ei SICD.GPVcDk s.yfVO> ಭೂFಾGೕಕ7Aೆ Hಂ;ರು+ಸುವಂ vÉ

snD HUC IAiP JJkxVO> N: ADH CiICiKLuO snD Hnid ಮನ5 sGNJk ನಂತರ

snD HªÀÅ vÁ£ÀÄ IPRk IAiP oVUVO> H3MOi;kOx, ಇದನು> 1kOHOADHHO ªÀiÁ£Àå

ಉಚQ$ಾRSಾಲಯದGN ಡಬೂNU 32641/2002 ರ <ೕ=ೆ M-J>JkOx, 5VಾರWೆ VOiJk WÀ£À

$ಾRSಾಲಯವC ;$ಾಂಕ:06-07-2009 ರ ತನ> wPU VGN ಈ ni9h3/3Ei YAiPJJHOUC zÀÄ

h3/O@HOyfAi.

a. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Annexure-L

communication is set aside only in so far as petiti oner

1 to 3 are concerned. It is open to the parties to work

out their remedies before the appropriate authority in

case the State Government proceeds with matter, it

shall give an opportunity of being heard to the

petitioners and pass a reasoned order. JAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

F jÃw $ಾRSಾಲಯವC YAiPo IPRk ನಂತರ N: ADH gÁUÀ°Ã 1kOHOADH=D8GP

snD HUVO> s3MZ J, Sಾವ 7ೕ&ಯ YAiPoUVO> ತಂ;ರುEೆ-ೕ*ೆಂಬುದ £ÀÄß IAiP oVk3Ei

Sಾರ ಪರ*ಾ+ಯೂ wPFD V FDRTNci3@OkO k[\M/OyfAi, ಈ H$ೆ>]ೆಯGN M-J>y

SICD.GPV s.yfVO> *ಾಪ^ ಪOೆ;ರುವ 1kOHOADHHO ಈ _ಣದವ=ೆAೆ M-J>y ಸ-&-Aೆ J-P

?hOdADH=DmHOEDf=i3@OkO <P]iI>Panid k[\M/OyfAi. ಮತು- pM(bDADGnD789:

M-J>y YAiPo 'iIHRJHOUCkO sM3LscDmkOx, ಸದ7 YAiPokGN ಮಧR M-ciPJsOU ಅಗತR

ಕಂಡುಬರುವC;ಲN.

16

Û ÁzÉÅÅ£ $ಾRSಾಲಯದ ¢jUÁà ÛJ¸GN )UÉÁÅwã> )/WZÁA ತನ> ಪರ

Yzèj¼ ಪOೆದ ನಂತರ P/zÉSÉFUÉ789 M£/zè ಸದ7 Yzèj¼wã> M£/zè¹Jd, ಸೂಕ-

¢0£ßWJ89ã> – P/zɸ zÉe]è89GN FÉWÁJAUè¹9fT£ ÛwUɼ5Å£,-zè. ಈ

H$ೆ>]ೆಯGN ಈ Uè9P/4/Eè YzèjJAzè.

Yzèj¼Yzèj¼Yzèj¼Yzèj¼:-

gೆಂಗಳhರುgೆಂಗಳhರುgೆಂಗಳhರುgೆಂಗಳhರು ಉತ-ರಉತ-ರಉತ-ರಉತ-ರ(ಅಪರಅಪರಅಪರಅಪರ) EಾಲೂNಕುEಾಲೂNಕುEಾಲೂNಕುEಾಲೂNಕು, ಯಲಹಂಕಯಲಹಂಕಯಲಹಂಕಯಲಹಂಕ ೋಬDೋಬDೋಬDೋಬD, Uè¹jJAè?DfUè¹jJAè?DfUè¹jJAè?DfUè¹jJAè?Df AÉ/M0AÉ/M0AÉ/M0AÉ/M0

ಸಸಸಸ.ನಂನಂನಂನಂ. 165/2 ರರರರ 0-29 ಗುಂiೆಗುಂiೆಗುಂiೆಗುಂiೆ ಬAೆBಬAೆBಬAೆBಬAೆB Û ÁzÉÅÅ£Û ÁzÉÅÅ£Û ÁzÉÅÅ£Û ÁzÉÅÅ£ )GNA0)GNA0)GNA0)GNA0 ಪCನjಪCನjಪCನjಪCನj ಪ7Jೕಲ$ಾಪ7Jೕಲ$ಾಪ7Jೕಲ$ಾಪ7Jೕಲ$ಾ Û Á¸Ã£>Û Á¸Ã£>Û Á¸Ã£>Û Á¸Ã£>

¢Å)¨7A¢Å)¨7A¢Å)¨7A¢Å)¨7A YzèjJAzèYzèjJAzèYzèjJAzèYzèjJAzè.

ಈ Yzèj¼wã> ಉಕ-]ೇಖನ Uè¹a£3, gೆರಳಚುQ FÉJA, ತಪC1ಗಳನು> ¢0£ßWJ FÉJ

;$ಾಂಕ: 25.10.2023 ರಂದು ಬHರಂಗ $ಾRSಾಲಯದGN kೂೕlಸ]ಾmತು.”

¸À»/-

(PÉ.J.zÀAiÀiÁ£ÀAzÀ)

f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ

¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè

¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.”

Here, the Deputy Commissioner relies entirely on an order dated

6-07-2009. The order is rendered on 25-10-2023. By that time, the

order on which the Deputy Commissioner places relia nce upon

stood recalled in terms of an order dated 25-07-201 9. Therefore,

there was no reason for the Deputy Commissioner to look into an

order that stood recalled as on the date he passed the order.

Surprisingly the Deputy Commissioner also records that in terms of

a notification issued under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition

Act, the property stood vested in the hands of the Society and

17

passes his order entirely on the order passed by this Court dated

06-07-2009 which was not in existence as on the dat e the Deputy

Commissioner passed his order.

11. Therefore, the order of the Deputy Commissioner suffers

from want of application of mind, adequate reasons and does not

refer to the factum of possession being handed over to the Society

by the State itself, which was recorded by the learned single Judge

referred to supra. On all these counts, the order of the revisional

authority is to be obliterated and the matter remitted back to his

hands for consideration afresh. Though the order p assed by the

Assistant Commissioner is also under challenge, sin ce the order

passed in the revision petition suffers from legal lacunae, I deem it

appropriate to remit the matter back to the hands o f the 1

st

respondent/ Deputy Commissioner, while directing stay of the order

passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 03-06-2016 till disposal

of the revision petition.

18

12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

O R D E R

(i) Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) The order dated 25-10-2023 passed by the 1

st

respondent/Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition

No.201 of 2020 stands quashed.

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the Deputy

Commissioner for a decision afresh, bearing in mind the

observations made in the course of the order.

(iv) The order of the Assistant Commissioner which is

challenged before the Deputy Commissioner in Revision

Petition No.201 of 2020 shall remain stayed, till decision

of the Deputy Commissioner in the now remanded

proceedings.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA)

JUDGE

bkp

CT:MJ