State Alone Custodian Of Public Property; Revenue Cannot Initiate Proceedings To Alter Records Without Government Direction: Karnataka High Court

The Court further observed that revenue officials are merely custodians of revenue records and cannot assume the role of initiating proceedings concerning public property in the absence of governmental sanction.

The Court was hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Joint Director of Land Records and consequential actions taken by revenue authorities directing the deletion of names from revenue records, as well as writ petitions filed by the State assailing earlier orders of the Special Deputy Commissioner.

A Single Bench of Justice R. Devdas observed: “Tahsildars have been initiating proceedings before the Deputy Commissioners/Special Deputy Commissioners without there being any Government orders passed by the Department of Revenue, … This Court has held in umpteen number of cases that it is the State alone who is the custodian of the public property, … The revenue authorities are only custodians of the revenue records, and they cannot initiate proceedings without there being a motion from the Department of Revenue”.

The State was represented by the I. Tharanatha Poojary, Additional Advocate General, while the private parties were represented by Senior Advocate Uday Holla and other counsel.

Background

The dispute arose from long-standing entries in the revenue records reflecting the names of private individuals as landholders, which had continued for several decades. The State alleged that such entries were based on forged or fabricated records and that no valid grants had been made in favour of the concerned persons.

Acting on such allegations, the Tahsildar initiated proceedings by approaching the Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, seeking deletion of the names of the writ petitioners from the revenue records. However, the Special Deputy Commissioner, upon examination of records, dropped the proceedings, finding no substance in the allegations.

Subsequently, in proceedings relating to survey and land records, the Joint Director of Land Records directed the Tahsildar to remove the names of the petitioners from the revenue records, which led to the deletion of entries. The affected parties challenged these actions, contending a lack of jurisdiction and a violation of due process.

Court’s Observation

The Court undertook a detailed examination of the statutory scheme governing revenue records under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. It emphasised that the framework under Chapter XI clearly delineates the authorities competent to deal with entries in the Record of Rights, namely the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner.

The Court held that survey settlement authorities such as the Joint Director of Land Records do not have jurisdiction to direct deletion of entries in revenue records, as their powers are confined to survey, phodi, and settlement functions under a distinct statutory framework.

It further observed that the impugned actions suffered from a lack of jurisdiction as well as a violation of principles of natural justice, since no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the affected parties before directing the deletion of their names from revenue records.

The Court also took note of a recurring pattern of revenue authorities seeking to reopen entries that had stood undisturbed for decades. It was observed that such belated actions, often initiated after a lapse of several decades, create uncertainty and adversely affect third-party rights that may have crystallised based on such entries.

Reiterating settled law, the Court held that even where no limitation is prescribed, powers must be exercised within a reasonable time. Referring to the decisions in Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim (1997) and Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District v. D. Narsing Rao (2015), the Court observed that delayed exercise of revisional powers is impermissible, as it leads to prolonged uncertainty and undermines the stability of property rights.

The Court deprecated the conduct of revenue authorities initiating proceedings without proper sanction, noting that Tahsildars have been initiating proceedings without there being any Government orders, while stressing that the State alone is the custodian of the public property, and the revenue authorities are only custodians of the revenue records.

“This Court has been flooded with such cases complaining of the highhandedness of the revenue authorities. Revenue entries which have been maintained for several decades are sought to be deleted without prior notice or initiation of proceedings before the competent authority”, the Court highlighted.

All such actions, the Court added, “are to be deprecated and the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department is required to take note of the observations of this Court and initiate action or issue a Circular providing guidelines to the Tahsildars while initiating proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act”.

The Court further observed that despite repeated judicial pronouncements, no clear guidelines had been issued by the Revenue Department to regulate such actions by Tahsildars, leading to a large number of cases alleging arbitrary deletion of long-standing entries.

It accordingly emphasised the need for administrative intervention and directed that the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, take note of such practices and issue appropriate circulars or guidelines governing initiation of proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act.

Conclusion

The Court held that the impugned orders passed by the Joint Director of Land Records and consequential actions of revenue authorities were without jurisdiction and in violation of due process.

Accordingly, the impugned orders and communications were quashed, and the authorities were directed to restore the names of the petitioners in the revenue records as they existed prior to such actions. The writ petitions filed by the private parties were allowed, while those filed by the State were dismissed.

Cause Title: State of Karnataka v. Special Deputy Commissioner & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:17876)

Appearances

Petitioners: I. Tharanatha Poojary, AAG; V. Seshu, HCGP and Others

Respondents: Uday Holla, Senior Advocate; S. Chandrashekar, Advocate and Others

Click here to read/download Judgment