Karnataka High Court
CCC/579/2026 of SRI. KUMBINARASIMHAIAH Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 23 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010352232026 NC: 2026:KHC:52467-DB CCC No. 579 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.579 OF 2026 BETWEEN:
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.579 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. KUMBINARASIMHAIAH
S/O LATE GANGANARASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
(SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT IS NOT CLAIMED)
2.
SRI. NAGARAJU G.
S/O LATE GANGANARASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
(SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT IS NOT CLAIMED)
3.
SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY
S/O LATE GANGANARASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
COMPLAINANT NOS.2 & 3 ARE
REP. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
KUMBINARASIMHAIAH – COMPLAINANT NO.1
ALL ARE R/AT SIDDLINGAYYANAPALYA
HAMLET OF KURUVELU VILLAGE
URUDIGERE HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101
…COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)
Digitally signed by
SUMATHY KANNAN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
…PROFORMA R1
2.
SRI. BAAVARAJU
AGE AND FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO
COMPLAINANT
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BEERASANDRA VILLAGE,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
3.
MADAM DURGASHREE
AGE AND FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO
COMPLAINANT
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION
DODDABALLAPURA TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203
4.
SRI. MAHESH BEERAPPA POOJAR
AGE AND FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO
COMPLAINANT
THE TAHASILDAR
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
NELAMANGALA BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123
…ACCUSED
(BY SMT. SUKANYA B BALIGA, AGA FOR PROFORMA R1 AND
A2 TO A4)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE
HC-KAR
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.4 FOR VIOLATING
THE ORDER OF THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 07.04.2025
PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.6197/2025, CONNECTED WITH
WRIT
PETITION
NO.6197/2025
C/W
WRIT
PETITION
NO.6193/2025, VIDE ANNEXURE-E, AND BE PLEASED TO
PUNISH ACCUSED NO.4 FOR VIOLATING THE ORDER OF THIS
HON’BLE COURT, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
No one appears for the complainant.
2. Allegation of deliberate disobedience of the order of this court dated 07.04.2025, passed in W.P.No.6197/2025 connected with W.P.No.6193/2025 is alleged.
HC-KAR
3. By the order of the writ court, after noticing that an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘KLR Act’) would lie only against an order in respect of a mutation of revenue entries, it was observed that the Assistant Commissioner could not have registered the appeal on the basis of a report of the Tahsildar. The impugned order dated 02.09.2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner was quashed. However, liberty was given to the Thasildar to resubmit the report dated 02.09.2020 or file a fresh report before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act.
4. The writ court observed that since the order of the Assistant Commissioner has been set aside, if the revenue entries are mutated against the petitioners, the same shall be restored in the name of the petitioners.
5. Annexure R2 in the compliance affidavit of accused reflects proceedings under Section 136(3) of the
HC-KAR
KLR Act. It refers to a report dated 21.05.2026 submitted by the Tahsildar, Nelamangala Taluk, stating that lands of survey Nos.47 and 48 of Sompura Hobli, Markenahalli Village, Nelamangala Taluk, are originally government cattle lands in which the names of several persons were found to be illegally recorded in column 9 of the Land Register. Villagers had complained against this. Information notice was issued to the concerned and a joint site inspection was conducted with the Mines department officials and it was confirmed that the ‘landowners’ were not in possession of the land, and stone mining was going on there and no documents relating to land grant were available.
6. After referring to the order of the writ court dated 07.04.2025, it was observed that the Tahsildar had thereafter submitted his proposal along with necessary documents for consideration of the District Collector, seeking action under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act to
HC-KAR
cancel the accounts and ledgers entered in the above survey numbers.
7. It was observed in the order dated 25.05.2026 that the survey numbers aforesaid were originally Government Gomal and in order to enter the name of any private person in the Government Gomal land in column 9, it is mandatory to have an officially sanctioned order, cultivation certificate and other sanction documents from the competent authority.
8. The submission of the heirs of one of the respondents was considered, who had argued that the land had been in their possession, since the time of their grandfather. However, they failed to produce any official sanction or cultivation certificate or title deed to prove that the land was sanctioned to their ancestors by the Government. Just because the name is registered in the previous year’s revenue records or mutations, the ownership of Government land, without any original
HC-KAR
sanction documents, cannot be acquired. The joint site investigation report conducted by the Tahsildar, the Sub- Divisional Officer and the officers of the Mines and Geology Department were also considered.
9. The entries made in the accounts and conveyances of Government land without orders of the competent authority were held to be illegal and void. Accordingly, while allowing the proceedings under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act, the names of the accused appearing in the revenue records were cancelled and all accounts, mutation entries and mutation orders relating to them were cancelled.
10. Annexure R3 to the aforesaid affidavit is an endorsement dated 20.07.2026, reiterating the contents of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 25.05.2026. This endorsement has been communicated to the complainant.
HC-KAR
11. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the order of writ court has been complied with. The contempt case is therefore consigned.
Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE
Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22