- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:44982 WP No. 44388 of 2011 CNR: KAHC010822352011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.44388 OF 2011 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS S/O VENKATAMMA R/O AEROHALLI VILLAGE, YESWANTHPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANGAMESH R.B., ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally signed 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKAby CHAYA S A Location: HIGH DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE COURT OF KARNATAKA M S BUILDINGS, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU. - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:44982 WP No. 44388 of 2011 CNR: KAHC010822352011 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION BENGALURU. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BENGALURU. 5. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR YESWANTHPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. 6. R. DAYANANDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LATE M. RAMALINGAIAH R/AT 1885, 5TH MAIN ROAD, RPC LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560040. 7. NARAYANASWAMY SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTEDBY HIS LRS. 7(a). JAYALAKSHMI W/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 7(b). MANJUNATH S/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 7(c). SHOBHA D/O NARAYANASWAMY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:44982 WP No. 44388 of 2011 CNR: KAHC010822352011 AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R7(a) TO 7(c) ARE R/AT NO.1885, 5TH MAIN ROAD,

RPC LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560040. 8. LOKANATH S/O C RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT 413, 6TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1-R5; SRI. H.S. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6, R7(a TO c); SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R8) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2011 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN REVISION/REVIEW PETITION 175/2008-09 AS CONTAINED UNDER ANNEXURE A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:44982 WP No. 44388 of 2011 CNR: KAHC010822352011 ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 16.03.2011, produced as Annexure-A, passed by respondent No. 2-Spl. Deputy Commissioner. 2. Heard Sri. Sangamesh R.B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State; Sri. H.S. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 6 and 7(A to C) and Sri. V.B. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 8.

3. Sri. Sangamesh R.B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the impugned order suffers from infirmity, as respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to pass the said order under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:44982 WP No. 44388 of 2011 CNR: KAHC010822352011 1964 and, accordingly, sought interference by this Court. 4. Per contra, Sri. H.S. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 6 and 7 submitted that respondent No.2 had jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and accordingly, he sought dismissal of the writ petition. 5. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon careful consideration of the impugned order dated 16.03.2011, it is evident that respondent No. 2 has reconsidered the earlier order passed by him on 03.09.2009. 6. In this regard, it is a well-established principle of law that respondent No. 2, being a quasi- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:44982 WP No. 44388 of 2011 CNR: KAHC010822352011 judicial authority, has no power or authority to review its own order, in the absence of any statutory provision conferring such power.

7. Following the declaration of law made by this Court in the case of N. Chandra Reddy v. The State of Karnataka and Others reported in ILR 2016 KAR 3275, wherein it has been held that there is no provision under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, or the Rules framed thereunder conferring power on the authority to review an order passed by it, and therefore, I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 16.03.2011, produced as Annexure-A, passed by respondent No. 2-Spl. Deputy Commissioner, is hereby set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:44982 WP No. 44388 of 2011 CNR: KAHC010822352011 9. It is open to the parties to establish their respective rights in respect of the property in question before the competent Civil Court. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:44982 WP No. 44388 of 2011 CNR: KAHC010822352011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.44388 OF 2011 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS S/O VENKATAMMA R/O AEROHALLI VILLAGE, YESWANTHPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANGAMESH R.B., ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally signed 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKAby CHAYA S A Location: HIGH DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE COURT OF KARNATAKA M S BUILDINGS, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU. - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:44982 WP No. 44388 of 2011 CNR: KAHC010822352011 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION BENGALURU. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BENGALURU. 5. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR YESWANTHPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. 6. R. DAYANANDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LATE M. RAMALINGAIAH R/AT 1885, 5TH MAIN ROAD, RPC LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560040. 7. NARAYANASWAMY SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTEDBY HIS LRS. 7(a). JAYALAKSHMI W/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 7(b). MANJUNATH S/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 7(c). SHOBHA D/O NARAYANASWAMY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:44982 WP No. 44388 of 2011 CNR: KAHC010822352011 AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R7(a) TO 7(c) ARE R/AT NO.1885, 5TH MAIN ROAD,

RPC LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560040. 8. LOKANATH S/O C RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT 413, 6TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1-R5; SRI. H.S. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6, R7(a TO c); SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R8) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2011 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN REVISION/REVIEW PETITION 175/2008-09 AS CONTAINED UNDER ANNEXURE A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:44982 WP No. 44388 of 2011 CNR: KAHC010822352011 ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 16.03.2011, produced as Annexure-A, passed by respondent No. 2-Spl. Deputy Commissioner. 2. Heard Sri. Sangamesh R.B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State; Sri. H.S. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 6 and 7(A to C) and Sri. V.B. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 8.

3. Sri. Sangamesh R.B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the impugned order suffers from infirmity, as respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to pass the said order under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:44982 WP No. 44388 of 2011 CNR: KAHC010822352011 1964 and, accordingly, sought interference by this Court. 4. Per contra, Sri. H.S. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 6 and 7 submitted that respondent No.2 had jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and accordingly, he sought dismissal of the writ petition. 5. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon careful consideration of the impugned order dated 16.03.2011, it is evident that respondent No. 2 has reconsidered the earlier order passed by him on 03.09.2009. 6. In this regard, it is a well-established principle of law that respondent No. 2, being a quasi- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:44982 WP No. 44388 of 2011 CNR: KAHC010822352011 judicial authority, has no power or authority to review its own order, in the absence of any statutory provision conferring such power.

7. Following the declaration of law made by this Court in the case of N. Chandra Reddy v. The State of Karnataka and Others reported in ILR 2016 KAR 3275, wherein it has been held that there is no provision under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, or the Rules framed thereunder conferring power on the authority to review an order passed by it, and therefore, I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 16.03.2011, produced as Annexure-A, passed by respondent No. 2-Spl. Deputy Commissioner, is hereby set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:44982 WP No. 44388 of 2011 CNR: KAHC010822352011 9. It is open to the parties to establish their respective rights in respect of the property in question before the competent Civil Court. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1