Writ Petition No. 20948 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 20948 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) …PETITIONER BETWEEN: 1. SAMPANGIRAMAYYA S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NARAYANAPURA, JALA HOBALI YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE-560 064. (BY SRI. KRISHNAMOORTHY .D, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 2. 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION D.C. COMPOUND, BANGALORE-560 009. THE TAHASILDAR YELAHANKA TALUK YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA .K, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO STAY THE EXECUTION, OPERATION AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN PURSUANT TO THE ORDER IMPUGNED BY 2ND RESPONDENT, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 BEARING NO.LND/RUC/YLK/06/2024 DATED 18.07.2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-P IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Captioned petition is filed assailing the order of respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-B who has cancelled the grant dated 22.6.1999 on the ground that the granted land falls within 18 Kms. radius of BBMP. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: The present case has a complex and checkered history, marked by repeated litigation and persistent attempts by the revenue authorities to disregard and undermine the judicial pronouncements rendered by the Constitutional Courts. The conduct of the respondent authorities demonstrates a pattern of re-litigation, despite clear judicial directives intended to resolve the matter. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 3. The initial dispute arose when the Deputy Commissioner, through an order dated 9.2.2016, decided to reserve an extent of 2.25 acres in Survey No. 259 of Bettahalasur Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, for the purpose of developing a public park. This decision directly affected the petitioner, who had been granted two acres of land in the same survey number, now designated for park development. Aggrieved by this action, the petitioner challenged the order by filing W.P. Nos. 37816- 37817/2016. These writ petitions were adjudicated, and by an order dated 4.12.2018, the Hon'ble Court issued specific directions to rectify the error that had occurred in the land records. The Court directed the Assistant Commissioner to take corrective measures by issuing a corrigendum to Annexure-J attached to the petitions. Furthermore, the Assistant Commissioner was mandated to amend the boundaries of the land in Form No. 10 and ensure that the inadvertent error was rectified in accordance with the law. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 4. In this context, paragraphs 2 to 4 of the said order assume significance, as they explicitly outline the Court’s reasoning and directives. The relevant extracts of the order are reproduced below: "2. After enquiry by the Court, it now stands revealed that the petitioner is actually in possession of a different parcel of land, which he continued to occupy and that continues even as on today. On verification, it is seen the land which is said to have been granted to him is lying adjacent to the highway whereas, the land the petitioner is actually in possession is at some distance from the road.
Legal Reasoning
On a query, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this piece of land over which the petitioner had been in occupation and continues in possession is the land over which the petitioner had made the application and he was never aware of the grant over the other piece of land and that the petitioner is willing to continue his occupation of the land which is currently in his possession and cultivation. 3. Respondents also confirm and admit the said position and they would fairly concede that the petitioner has been in occupation of the land even prior to the grant proceedings. A copy of the survey sketch is produced as R7 wherein the land which the authorities say has been granted to the petitioner is shown and marked as `ABCK’ whereas, the land he is in possession is marked as `MIHL’. The learned Government Advocate has produced photographs R1 to R8 along with the statement of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 objections wherein, R1 to 5 depict the land where the respondents intend to create the park. Photograph R6 is the land upon which the petitioner is in possession. On perusal of R6, one can safely infer that the petitioner is carrying on agricultural activities. 4. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that, ends of justice would be met if third respondent-Assistant Commissioner is directed to draw the proceedings by way of `corrigendum to Annexure-J’ to the petition and thereby amend the boundaries of the land in Form no.10 (Annexure-J) and correct the error that has crept in." 5. The extracted portion from the aforementioned order, particularly paragraph 3, explicitly acknowledges the petitioner’s rightful claim over the subject land. The Court recognized the petitioner’s legal entitlement and possession, thereby reinforcing the legitimacy of the petitioner's ownership. Further substantiating this claim, photographic evidence at "Annexure-R6 "submitted as part of the writ petitions clearly depicts the petitioner’s exclusive possession of the land. These visual records serve as additional proof that the petitioner has been in uninterrupted control and occupation of the land. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 6. Taking these aspects into account, the Co- Ordinate Bench, while adjudicating W.P. Nos. 37816- 37817/2016, issued unequivocal directions to the revenue authorities. The Court specifically instructed the concerned officials to rectify the erroneous delineation of boundaries in Form No.10 and correct the discrepancies that had inadvertently crept into the records. This was to be achieved by issuing a corrigendum to the previously recorded details, ensuring that the petitioner’s rightful landholding was accurately reflected in official documentation. 7. In compliance with the judicial directions issued in the above writ petitions, Respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner took corrective measures by issuing a corrigendum on 5.10.2020, which is documented at Annexure-C. This corrigendum was a crucial step in rectifying the erroneous records and ensuring that the petitioner’s legal rights were not further compromised. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 8. Subsequently, as part of the compliance process, a fresh Saguvali Chit (grant certificate) was issued to the petitioner on 27.1.2021, in strict adherence to the Court’s directions. This newly issued Saguvali Chit, evidenced at Annexure-D, re-affirmed the petitioner’s lawful entitlement to the land. The preamble of the Saguvali Chit itself explicitly references and incorporates the Court’s order, thereby cementing the legal basis for the correction and the grant of land in favour of the petitioner. The relevant portion of the Court’s order, as reflected in the preamble, is extracted below: "ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ W.P.No.37816- 37817/2016 ¢£ÁAPÀ 04.12.2018 gÀAvÉ ºÁUÀÆ G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå LND/BNA/CR06/2019-20 ¢£ÁAPÀ 05.10.2020 gÀ DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ " 9. Following the issuance of the Saguvali Chit and the corrigendum, Respondent No.3/Tahsildar, by an order dated 27.1.2021, directed the subordinate revenue officials to take necessary steps for mutating the petitioner’s name in the official land records. This direction - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 was issued in strict adherence to the corrigendum and the grant certificate, ensuring that the petitioner’s legal rights over the land were duly recognized in government records. 10. Pursuant to this order, the petitioner initiated the requisite legal process by submitting an application for phodi and durasti in respect of Survey No. 259, specifically concerning the petition land measuring 1.15 acres. 11. However, as anticipated, the respondent authorities failed to take any action on the petitioner’s application. The prolonged inaction and lack of compliance with judicial and administrative directives left the petitioner with no alternative but to seek judicial intervention once again. Consequently, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court by filing W.P. No. 2045/2023, seeking appropriate directions against the inaction of the authorities. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 12. This writ petition was adjudicated and disposed of by an order dated 8.2.2023. The Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, issued pertinent directions to address the petitioner’s grievance. In this regard, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order passed in W.P. No. 2045/2023 are of particular significance, as they outline the Court’s reasoning and directives. The relevant extracts of the order are reproduced below: "3. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the petitioner was required to make online application to the competent authority for conducting Phodi and Durasth work and therefore, the petitioner may be directed to file an application online. 4. Recording the submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader, this writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file an application online to the respondent-Tahsildar and the respondent-Tahsildar is also directed to consider the application which would be filed by the petitioner and do the needful as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the application." - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 13. Upon a careful reading of the extracted paragraphs, it becomes evident that the respondent authorities took the position that the petitioner was required to submit an online application for processing the request. Acknowledging this contention, this Court, while disposing of the writ petition, granted liberty to the petitioner to comply with the procedural requirement by submitting the application through the prescribed online portal. 14. In adherence to the Court’s direction, the petitioner duly submitted the required online application. However, despite fulfilling this procedural requirement, the respondent authorities once again failed to act, leading to further inaction and non-compliance on their part. Frustrated by the persistent delay and the lack of diligence on the part of the authorities, the petitioner was left with no choice but to initiate contempt proceedings by filing CCC No. 379/2023. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 15. During the contempt proceedings, the Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents, contended that technical issues had hindered the processing of the online application. Citing these technical difficulties, the authorities requested the petitioner to re-submit the application physically for the purposes of phodi and durasti. 16. Given the significance of these developments, this Court finds it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the order passed in the contempt proceedings, which reads as follows: "Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that there are certain technical issues with regard to the receipt of processing of online application. Hence, he prayed that the Complainant be directed to re-submit his application in paper form and that the same would be
Decision
considered and disposed off within four weeks thereafter. 2. The submission is placed on record. 3. Liberty is granted to the Complainant to re-submit an application in physical form and if such an application is submitted, the jurisdictional officer shall receive the same - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 and thereafter attempt to dispose off the same within a period of four weeks. 4. With the above observations the Contempt Petition stands closed, with liberty to the Complainant to seek revival of the Contempt Petition in the event there is no compliance within a period of four weeks." 17. In view of the assurance given by the respondent/authorities contempt proceedings were dropped reserving liberty to petitioner to seek revival of the contempt petition in the event there is no compliance within a period of four weeks. 18. Following the order passed in the contempt proceedings, the petitioner, in compliance with the directions of this Court, once again submitted a detailed representation to the respondent authorities. This representation, evidenced at Annexure-L, was accompanied by eleven supporting documents, reinforcing the petitioner’s claim and the necessity for the authorities to take appropriate action. Despite this, the respondent authorities failed to act, continuing their pattern of inaction and non-compliance. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 19. Faced with yet another instance of disregard for judicial directives, the petitioner was compelled to return to this Court, alleging continued disobedience of its orders. Consequently, the petitioner sought the revival of the contempt proceedings initially initiated in CCC No. 379/2023. In light of the persistent inaction by the authorities, this Court finds it appropriate to extract the order dated 7.6.2023, order dated 9.2.2024, and order dated 5.4.2024, which provide crucial insights into the judicial stance taken on this issue. The relevant portions of these orders are as follows: ORDER DATED 7.6.2023 "Learned counsel for the complainant inviting our attention to the order of this Court dated 08.02.2023 submitted that pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner approached the Office of the Tahsildar for submitting an online application (Phodi durasti) on 06.03.2023 with necessary fee. Though the application was received by the Office of the Tahsildar and issued an endorsement for the same, the application was not further processed. He further submits that approval is required by the Tahsildar to process the online application. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent No.2 and submits that there was no requirement of any approval from the Tahsildar for processing the online application. She further submits that the applicant/petitioner may submitted the online application without filling necessary details. Learned Additional Government Advocate to file response indicating the necessary procedure for filing an application and also to refer any details as to whether the endorsement or approval of Tahsildar is prerequisite for processing the online application. Issue notice to the accused and proforma respondent making the same returnable after three weeks. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent No.2. The complainant is also permitted to serve the accused and proforma respondent by hand delivery or by any other legally permissible mode of service apart from Court notice and place on record the affidavit-of-service to that effect before the returnable date." ORDER DATED 9.2.2024 "Sri.Devaraj C.H., learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused, on instructions from the accused Sri.Anilkumar, Tahsildar, Yelahanka who is present before the Court, submits that the accused would file an affidavit on or before 13.02.2024 undertaking that he would complete the phodi and durasti work of the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 petitioner's land within a period of 45 days from 13.02.2024. The said submission is placed on record. The accused is permitted to file affidavit in the Registry. If the affidavit is filed, re list on 28.03.2024. If the affidavit is not filed, re list on 16.02.2024." ORDER DATED 5.4.2024 " An affidavit is filed by the Tahsildar, Yelahanka who submits that necessary approval was required from the Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar is now permitted to take a decision at his level and accordingly, order is passed on 02.04.2024 directing the Assistant Director of Land Records to complete the phodi and durasti work. The said affidavit along with Annexures is taken on record. Taking note of the undertaking in the affidavit at paragraph 6 filed on 12.02.2024, the primary responsibility of the Tahsildar continues and extends to ensuring that phodi and durasti work is completed. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that though the Tahsildar will take all steps, however an observation may be made to enable the Tahsildar to follow up with the Assistant Director of Land Records and with the Deputy Director of Land Records to complete their part of work to enable the phodi and durasti report is filed by the next date. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 Taking note of the factual matrix and the direction passed, needless to state that when a Government entity is required to comply with an order, all other Government officials who are required to facilitate such process and complete different tasks are also required to cooperate in ensuring that there is obedience and compliance with the direction of this Court. Towards that end, the order passed today must be communicated to the Deputy Director of Land Records and the Assistant Director of Land Records as well despite to put them on notice, to extend cooperation and complete their part of the duty to ensure phodi and durasti as required insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned, is completed and report placed. For such communication as ordered, copy of the order to be communicated to the learned Additional Government Advocate. Report to be placed by the next date. Re-list the matter on 19.04.2024." 20. This Court also deems it fit to cull out the relevant portion of the order dated 24.4.2024, which reads as under: "On 19.04.2024, it was clearly directed that there has to be compliance with the order dated 05.04.2024, failing which, the Assistant Director of Land Records, the Deputy Director of Land Records and the Tahsildar, - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 Yelahanka were required to be present on the next date of hearing. When the matter was taken up at 2-30 p.m. today (24.04.2024), we find that there is no compliance of the order and the answer elicited from the officials present is that still approval is awaited. We find that the officials of the State are dithering over compliance stating many reasons orally which seek to overreach the order passed in W.P.No.2045/2023, which as on the date, has attained finality. We find lack of attitude of compliance by the Government Officials and hence, the presence of Revenue Secretary is required when the matter is called tomorrow at 2-30 p.m." On 29.5.2024, during the contempt proceedings, the Additional Advocate General, in an effort to address the persistent non-compliance by the authorities, ensured the presence of the Deputy Director of Land Records before the Court. In the course of these proceedings, a commitment was made to the Court that the necessary compliance measures would be undertaken and completed before the next date of hearing. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 21. Despite multiple judicial directives from both the writ Court and the contempt Court, the respondent authorities had consistently created unwarranted hurdles and obstructions, causing undue hardship to the petitioner. However, after prolonged litigation and persistent judicial intervention, the authorities finally took action. The Deputy Director of Land Records submitted a sworn affidavit, accompanied by supporting affidavits, confirming that the phodi and durasti process had been successfully completed. 22. In view of this development, this Court finds it appropriate to extract the order dated 14.6.2024, which reads as follows: " ORDER ON I.A.No.1/2023 The Compliance Affidavit is filed by Ms. P.S.Kusumalatha, Deputy Director of Land Records, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru. Along with the Affidavit, the records reflecting Phodi and durasthi are produced. Same are taken on record. In light of the same, I.A.No.1/2023 is disposed off as calling for no further adjudication. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 Insofar as the contention of learned counsel for the complainants regarding the consequential revenue entries, Sri Kiran Ron, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents/accused submits that the same would be effected by the respondents in due course. The presence of Mr.Rajender Kumar Kataria, Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue, appearing through Video Conferencing is taken note of." 23. Despite having accomplished the phodi and durasti process and having filed affidavits affirming compliance with the directives of this Court, the respondent authorities have now instigated a fresh round of litigation. This has been done through Respondent No.3/Tahsildar, who has filed an appeal before Respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner, challenging the very grant of land to the petitioner. The newfound contention advanced by the authorities is that the granted land purportedly falls within an 18-kilometer radius of BBMP, thereby making the grant untenable under prevailing regulations. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 24. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while forcefully reiterating the grounds raised in the writ petition, has vehemently argued that the actions of the revenue authorities amount to an abuse of power. The learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation and Others1, asserting that any action undertaken by public authorities must be free from arbitrariness and unreasonableness. The present proceedings initiated by Respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner at the behest of Respondent No.3/Tahsildar, which seek to cancel the grant after a lapse of 25 years, constitute a gross miscarriage of justice. 25. The learned counsel has further contended that the initiation of proceedings before Respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner is a deliberate and calculated attempt to circumvent the corrigendum issued pursuant to the directions of the Co-Ordinate Bench in W.P. Nos. 1 (1993) 3 SCC 279 - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 37816-37817/2016. It is also in blatant contravention of the undertaking given before the Contempt Court. 26. In response to the claim of the respondent/authorities that the granted land falls within an 18-kilometer radius of BBMP, the petitioner has produced additional documents through a memo dated 18.2.2025. Referring to these documents, the petitioner’s counsel has specifically highlighted the endorsement dated 14.06.2018, issued by the Tahsildar, Yelahanka, which unequivocally establishes that the granted land is beyond the 18-kilometer threshold. 27. Furthermore, the learned counsel has pointed out that the Committee responsible for issuing the Saguvali Chit had previously recommended the issuance of grants in respect of the very same survey number (Survey No. 259 of Bettahalasuru Village). Notably, the 18- kilometer restriction has been selectively applied only to the petitioner’s grant, while similarly situated grantees in the same survey number have not been subjected to such - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 scrutiny. This selective targeting, according to the learned counsel, constitutes clear discrimination and establishes that the actions of Respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner are vitiated by malafides. 28. Additionally, the phodi and durasti undertaken in Survey No. 259 have resulted in the assignment of a new survey number for the granted land. The petitioner’s counsel has emphasized that, pursuant to the revenue records update, the originally designated Survey No. 259 has now been reassigned a new survey number, further cementing the finality of the grant. 29. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General, Sri. Kiran Ron, appearing for the respondents, has staunchly defended the impugned order passed by Respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner. He has argued that the Assistant Commissioner is vested with statutory jurisdiction under Rule 108(K) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, which empowers the authority to enquire into the validity - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 and genuineness of the grant. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, if it is found that the grant was made contrary to the applicable rules, the Assistant Commissioner is well within his powers to recall the grant. 30. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Advocate General. The relevant portions of the proceedings in both the writ petition and the contempt proceedings have been culled out and examined in detail. 31. It is pertinent to note that, during the pendency of W.P. Nos. 37816-37817/2016, this Court had observed that the petitioner was in possession of a land parcel different from the originally designated grant. Consequently, this Court had directed the Assistant Commissioner to rectify the boundaries and issue a fresh grant order. Pursuant to this judicial directive, a corrigendum was issued, which resulted in the amendment of boundaries and the issuance of a - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 fresh Form No. 10. Subsequently, a new Saguvali Chit was granted in compliance with the Court’s order, as evidenced at Annexure-D. Mutations were also carried out in accordance with the corrigendum and the revised Saguvali Chit. 32. Despite these clear judicial directives, the respondent authorities exhibited continuous non- compliance, compelling the petitioner to repeatedly approach this Court for enforcement of his legitimate rights. The malafide intent of the respondent authorities is clearly discernible from the contempt proceedings, which reveal repeated and deliberate attempts by the revenue officials to evade and frustrate the implementation of judicial orders. 33. Even after the successful completion of the phodi proceedings, the respondent authorities have once again devised a fresh legal challenge, solely to overturn the judgment rendered in W.P. Nos. 37816-37817/2016 and W.P. No. 2045/2023. This time, under the pretext - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 of re-examining the genuineness of the grant, they seek to invalidate the corrigendum that was issued pursuant to this Hon’ble Court’s explicit directions. 34. It is noteworthy that the respondent/authorities have consistently acknowledged that the petitioner remained in possession of the petition land contrary to the land that was granted which was initially notified as a park area. The corrigendum was issued precisely to rectify this discrepancy, and yet, the authorities now seek to nullify the grant under a newly devised pretext, which is clearly intended to undermine the binding effect of this Court’s prior rulings. 35. This Court finds that Respondent No.3/Tahsildar has mischievously initiated the present proceedings, in an attempt to re-litigate issues that have already attained finality. The earlier judicial pronouncements in W.P.Nos. 37816- 37817/2016 have unequivocally recognized the petitioner’s possession and cultivation. Moreover, - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 Respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner has already issued a corrigendum and fresh Saguvali Chit, thereby conclusively settling the matter. 36. The claim regarding the 18-kilometer radius restriction was never raised before the Co-Ordinate Bench in W.P. Nos. 37816-37817/2016, nor before this Court in W.P. No.2045/2023 or during contempt proceedings. This sudden invocation of the 18-kilometer restriction, after prolonged silence on the matter, raises serious concerns regarding the bona fides of the authorities. 37. Revenue authorities should not adopt an adversarial approach against citizens without justifiable grounds. The additional documents placed on record clearly indicate that several other grantees exist within the same survey number. However, the 18-kilometer restriction has not been applied to their grants, demonstrating a clear instance of selective targeting and discrimination against the petitioner. This Court, therefore, has no hesitation in holding that the actions of - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:9843 WP No. 20948 of 2024 the revenue authorities are vitiated by mala fides and an oblique motive. The additional documents conclusively establish that the granted land is situated beyond the 18-kilometer radius. In light of these facts, this Court cannot overlook the malafide intent behind the initiation of these fresh proceedings, particularly when the grant, as corrected pursuant to the Court’s directions, had already attained finality. 38. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 18.07.2024 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-"P" is hereby quashed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2