Kengeri Grants of 1934 Restored: Karnataka HC Says the State Waited Six Decades Too Long

In 1934, grantees named Muniyappa, Punji Rao and Nanjappa received grants of land in Survey No. 122 of Kengeri village, Bengaluru South Taluk. Over the following decades the land changed hands through registered sale deeds in 1948, 1961 and 1985, was converted for industrial and later educational use, and was built on. Then, by 2009, revenue officials were questioning whether the 1934 grants were genuine at all. In 2016 the Deputy Commissioner cancelled them. On 12 October 2026, the Karnataka High Court set that order aside.

The ruling, in Mr Gautham Krishnan v. State of Karnataka, Writ Petition No. 51712 of 2016 decided with three connected petitions (W.P. Nos. 51713, 46778 and 52310 of 2016), was passed by Justice E.S. Indiresh. For anyone buying land in Bengaluru whose title goes back to an old government grant, it is a clear statement of how long the State can wait before reopening that grant.

The short answer. The court allowed all four writ petitions, set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 22.03.2016 in RRT (2) C.R. No. 62/2007-08 for the subject lands, and directed the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, "to enter the names of the petitioners in the revenue records in respect of the respective subject lands, in accordance with law, forthwith." It held the proceedings were "initiated after a lapse of nearly six decades from the date of the original grant," and that the lands "have been converted for non-agricultural purposes and developed, with constructions having been raised thereon." The trade-off: there is no fixed time limit. The Supreme Court rulings the order relies on say the power must be used within a reasonable period, which depends on the facts, and in fraud cases can run from when the fraud is discovered.

What did the High Court decide on 12 October 2026?

It sided with the purchasers. The order reads: "(i) The writ petitions are allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 22.03.2016 passed by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, in RRT (2) C.R. No. 62/2007-08, in respect of the subject lands involved in the aforesaid writ petitions, is hereby set aside."

The third direction requires the Tahsildar to restore the petitioners' names in the revenue records "forthwith." The proceedings had been brought under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the provision the order identifies as the basis for the action. The order does not say whether the State intends to appeal.

Who were the petitioners and what land was involved?

Four sets of owners of parts of Sy. No. 122, Kengeri village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. According to the order:

Electrohms Private Limited bought 25 guntas in Sy. No. 122/14 under a registered sale deed dated 27.02.1985, tracing title to a grant to Muniyappa on 24.10.1934. The land was converted on 26.08.1965.

B.C. Thimmarayappa and G. Venkatesh claim 4 acres in Sy. No. 122/1, granted to Punji Rao under a grant certificate dated 13.11.1934 and acquired by "the petitioner's father" under a registered sale deed dated 16.12.1948.

Gautham Krishnan acquired 4 acres 15 guntas under a registered sale deed dated 27.02.1985, also tracing to the 1934 Muniyappa grant, and says the land remains in the petitioner's possession and cultivation.

The Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India claims 4 acres in Sy. No. 122/12, now renumbered Sy. No. 276, which the grantee Nanjappa sold to Mrs. Sudharshan Juneja by a registered sale deed dated 04.08.1961. That land was converted for industrial purposes on 19.09.1980 and permission for an educational institution followed on 20.05.2010.

What was the State's case?

That the grants themselves were suspect. The State's counsel, the order records, contended "that the very grant made in favour of the original grantees is doubtful," and that the revenue authorities had examined the grant orders and found the petitioners were relying on grants the State described as fabricated. The State sought dismissal of the petitions.

The petitioners argued that they were subsequent purchasers "who have developed the land after obtaining conversion for non-agricultural purposes," and that starting suo motu proceedings after nearly six decades was unsustainable.

The court did not decide whether the 1934 grants were genuine. It decided the case on delay, and on what the record showed after the 2009 remand.

What happened after the first round in 2009?

The Special Deputy Commissioner's order of 09.02.2009 rejecting the claims was challenged in several writ petitions decided in 2009, including W.P. No. 25115 of 2009 decided on 16.10.2009. In those cases the High Court set aside the orders and remitted the matters "for fresh consideration, with a direction to examine the entries in the original records and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law."

On remand, the order says, the Deputy Commissioner "examined the original records and the sale deeds executed in respect of the subject lands and recorded a finding that the documents produced by the petitioners were reflected in the IL and RR copies." Even so, the 22.03.2016 order cancelled the grants. The High Court said the Deputy Commissioner's findings "warrant reconsideration."

Why does delay matter if the State alleges fraud?

Because the courts have said fraud does not keep the door open forever. The order relies on an earlier High Court ruling in W.P. No. 302 of 2024, decided on 30.07.2026, which in turn quotes the Supreme Court in Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District v. D. Narsing Rao: "even when there is no period of limitation prescribed for the exercise of any power, revisional or otherwise, such power must be exercised within a reasonable period. This is so even in cases where allegations of fraud have necessitated the exercise of any corrective power."

That ruling adds: "Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity." An earlier High Court passage quoted in the order says: "Even where fraud is alleged, delay would defeat the action of State to unsettle entries in long continuance especially where rights of third parties are created in the intervening period of inaction by the State."

The order also quotes the Supreme Court's list of factors in such cases, including "effect on the rights of the third parties over the immovable property due to passage of considerable time, change of hands by subsequent bona fide transfers." Applying this line of cases, Justice Indiresh held it is "well settled" that the authorities must start suo motu proceedings within a reasonable period.

Does this mean a 1934 grant can never be questioned?

Not in those terms. The decisions quoted in the order do not fix a number of years. One Supreme Court passage says "It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case as to what is the reasonable time within which the power of suo motu action could be exercised," and another says that in fraud cases the power "could be exercised within a reasonable time from the date of detection or discovery of fraud."

The facts here weighed for the owners: nearly six decades of delay, repeated registered sales, conversion orders, construction, and a Deputy Commissioner finding that the petitioners' documents were reflected in the IL and RR copies. PropNewz also covered today a different granted land ruling where a buyer lost under the PTCL Act, in the Singena Agrahara case, and an old inam grant dispute in the Binnamangala case. Those cases turned on different laws and facts.

What should Bengaluru buyers of land traced to an old grant check?

Whether the grant itself is on record, and whether anyone has started proceedings against it. This case shows that the dispute can begin decades after the grant, and take years to resolve. Before buying, use this list.

1. Get a copy of the original grant order or grant certificate and note its date and grantee.
2. Ask the Tahsildar's office whether the grant is reflected in the IL and RR registers for the survey number.
3. Trace every registered sale deed from the grantee to the seller.
4. Check conversion orders and the purposes they allow.
5. Ask whether any suo motu proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act have been started or are pending.
6. Check for any High Court order on the survey number and whether it is under appeal.
7. Take legal advice before paying, since outcomes in these cases depend on the facts.

Frequently asked questions

What did the Karnataka High Court decide in Gautham Krishnan v. State of Karnataka?

On 12 October 2026 Justice E.S. Indiresh allowed four writ petitions, set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order of 22.03.2016 cancelling 1934 grants in Sy. No. 122, Kengeri village, and directed the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, to enter the petitioners' names in the revenue records forthwith.

Why did the court set aside the cancellation of the grants?

It found the suo motu proceedings were started nearly six decades after the original grants, and the lands had been converted for non-agricultural use and developed with constructions. It held authorities must start such proceedings within a reasonable period, following Supreme Court rulings.

Can the State reopen an old grant if it alleges fraud?

The rulings quoted in the order say that even where fraud is alleged, the power must be used within a reasonable period, and describing a transaction as fraudulent does not extend the time indefinitely. In fraud cases, reasonable time may run from when the fraud is discovered.

What should a buyer of land traced to an old grant check?

Get the original grant order, confirm it appears in the IL and RR registers, trace every registered sale deed, check conversion orders, ask whether proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act are pending, and take legal advice before paying.

This article summarises a court order for general information and is not legal or investment advice. The order may be subject to appeal.

Last updated 2026-11-08. PropNewz Team.