Writ Petition No. 1927 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9740 WP No. 1927 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 1927 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. M. P. VENKATESH S/O LATE M V PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 2. SRI NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE M V THIMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 3. SRI PRAKASH S/O LATE M V THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT MEDAHALLI VILLAGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PINCODE 562114 (BY SRI. A G NAGARAJA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT REPTD BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560 001 2. THE TAHASILDAR HOSAKOTE TALUK, HOSAKOTE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9740 WP No. 1927 of 2025 PIN 562114 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPUR BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE-561203. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BEERASANDRA DEVANAHALLI TLAUK BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE-562110.
Legal Reasoning
5. SMT. MUNIVENAKATAMMA W/O LATE M S MUNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 6. SRI CHINNASWAMY GOWDA S/O LATE M S MUNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 7. SRI M RAJU S/O LATE M S MUNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 8. SRI SATHISHA S/O LATE M S MUNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 9. SRI KEMPEGOWDA S/O LATE CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 10. SMT. SEETHAMMA W/O LATE CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 11. SRI RAJENDRA S/O LATE CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9740 WP No. 1927 of 2025 12. SRI MAHESHA S/O LATE CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 13. SRI NARENDRA S/O LATE CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 14. SMT. RAJAMMA W/O LATE M V MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 15. S. MANJULA W/O LATE M V MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 16. SMT. VIMALAMMA W/O LATE M V MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R-5 TO R-16 ARE R/AT MEDAHALLI VILLAGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562114 17. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O D S CHINNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT DEVANAGUNDI VILLAGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TLAUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562114 18. SMT. M K AMRUTHAMMA W/O K KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 550, AMRUTHA NILAYA NEW EXTENSION CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE KADUGODI POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGLAURU 560 067 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9740 WP No. 1927 of 2025 19. SMT. MANJULA W/O M K MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT M V EXTENSION HOSAKOTE TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE 562114. 20. SRI. MUNIYAPPA @ GULLAPPA., S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA., AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 21. SMT. PAPAMMA., W/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA., AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R-20 AND 21 ARE R/AT MEDAHALLI VILLAGE, ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 114. (BY SMT. B.P.RADHA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI. K.VIJAYAKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-17 TO R-19) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED COMMON ORDERS PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RURAL DISTRICT AT BANGALORE IN REVISION PETITIONS NO. 3/23 AND NO. 73/2023 DATED. 28.11.2024 PRODUCED AT ANNX-A THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT AT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA IN RA NO. (H)301/2016-17 DATED. 11.04.2022 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN RA NO. 293/2012-13 DATED. 04.03.2014 ANNEXURE-C THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN RRT/CR/A/20/2015-16 DATED. 21.12.2015 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED 15.03.2023 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E, ETC. RRT/CR/12/2022-23 DATED. DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION IN - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9740 WP No. 1927 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The dispute in this writ petition is relating to the entries in relation to Sy.No.135 and Sy.No.137, both situated in Devanagundi Village of Anugondanahalli Hobli, Hosakote Taluk. 2. The revenue entries in respect of landing bearing Sy.No.135 measuring 43 acres 39 guntas and land bearing Sy.No.137 measuring 13 acres 9 guntas is the subject matter of this writ petition. 3. On 13.10.1969, a sale deed came to be executed in respect of a portion of these two lands and pursuant to the sale deeds, revenue entries were mutated vide M.R.No.8/1970-71. 4. It appears that, in respect of the remaining land, there were inheritance proceedings in IHC - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9740 WP No. 1927 of 2025 No.50/1990-91 on the basis of which the entries were changed. 5. However, it appears that, one among these beneficiaries of the revenue entries raised a dispute, subsequently contending that there was over writing regarding the extents contrary to the extents that was indicated in the IHC proceedings and consequently, the Tahsildar initiated proceedings under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act for rectification. 6. 7. The Tahsildar modified the entries in the RTC, which resulted in the filing of an appeal. The Assistant Commissioner, on consideration of the claims of all the persons, whose name had been entered, has come to the conclusion that the revenue entries in respect of Sy.No.135 and Sy.No.137 would have to be reflected in the name of the following persons: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9740 WP No. 1927 of 2025 PÀ æ.¸ÀA 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. SÁvÉzÁgÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ wªÀÄägÀAiÀÄUËqÀ n.PÉA¥ÀtÚ ©£ï (ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ ¸ÀA§A¢ü) ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ¥Àà ©£ï UÀļÀî¥Àà (2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢) 1-00 JPÀgÉ ¦¼À¥Àà (2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À vÀAzÉ) JA.«.wªÀÄägÁAiÀÄ¥Àà (4£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À ¥Àw) a£À߸Áé«Ä (5£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢) JA.J£ï.a£À߸Áé«Ä (1£Éà ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ) JA.J¸ï.a£À߸Áé«Ä JA.J£ï.ªÀÄÄ£ÉßÃUËqÀ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ) wªÀÄäägÁAiÀÄUËqÀ (1£Éà ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀ vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ) MlÄÖ ºÁUÀÆ 2£Éà (1 & «¹ÛÃtð 13-36J/ÀÄAmÉ 1-00JPÀgÉ 1-00 1-00JPÀgÉ 13-00JPÀgÉ 8-02J/UÀÄAmÉ 5-00JPÀgÉ 1-01 43.39J/UÀÄAmÉ ¸À.£ÀA.137gÀ°è L.ºÉZï.¹.¸ÀASÉå:50/90-91 ºÁUÀÆ JA.Dgï.¸ÀASÉå:8/70-71gÀAvÉ F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ¥ÀºÀt zÁR¯É ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. PÀ æ.¸ÀA 1. 2. 3. 4. SÁvÉzÁgÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ «¹ÛÃtð 3-12J/UÀÄAmÉ ºÁUÀÆ JA.J¸ï.ªÀÄÄ£ÉßÃUËqÀ JA.J£ï.a£À߸Áé«Ä (ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ) ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ¥Àà ©£ï UÀļÀî¥Àà (2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢) 1-33J/UÀÄAmÉ 1-33J/UÀÄAmÉ ¦¼Àî¥Àà (3£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À vÀAzÉ) 1-34J/UÀÄAmÉ JA.«.wªÀÄägÁAiÀÄ¥Àà (4£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À ¥Àw) - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9740 WP No. 1927 of 2025 5. 8. wªÀÄägÁAiÀÄUËqÀ (ªÀÄÆ®SÁvÉzÁgÀgÀÄ) MlÄÖ 4-17J/UÀÄAmÉ 13-09J/UÀÄAmÉ The Assistant Commissioner has concluded that these were the names that were required to be entered as per the aforementioned mutation extract i.e. M.R.No.8/1970-71 and IHC No.50/1990-91. This order has been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. 9. It is the case of the petitioners that, as a result of this direction of the Assistant Commissioner, the revenue entries in respect of the petitioners have been reduced from 2 acres to 1 acre and from 2 acre 20 guntas to 1 acre 33 guntas. He therefore contends that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 10. In my view, this argument cannot be accepted fundamentally because the Assistant Commissioner has merely directed that the revenue entries has had - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9740 WP No. 1927 of 2025 been mutated vide M.R.No.8/1970-71 and IHC No.50/1990-91 should be reflected in the revenue records and, there is any discrepancy between the extent shown in the above mentioned mutation extracts and the existing entries, the former would prevail. 11. Admittedly, the entries as per IHC No.50/1991 standing the name of the petitioners was 1 acre in Sy.No.135 and 1 acre 33 guntas in Sy.No.137 and, so long as these entries are ordered to be continued, the petitioners cannot have grievance. If, it is the case of the petitioners that the entries had been subsequently changed and their extent was enlarged or reduced, is to be considered, that question cannot obviously be gone into by the revenue authorities and the petitioners would have to approach the Civil Court and seek a declaration in this regard. 12. It is to be stated here that the petitioners had accepted the entries reflected in IHC No.50/1991 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:9740 WP No. 1927 of 2025 and, therefore, would be bound by the order that has been passed in their favor. If he were to contend that there were some discrepancies in IHC No.50/1991 regarding their extent, obviously that can only done by way of a suit and, that cannot be by way of an order in the review proceedings. 13. Having regard to this situation, the Authorities have rightly directed the parties aggrieved by the order to approach the Civil Court and, in the event of their success, the revenue entries would automatically abide with the result of the said suit. 14. In my view, this procedure adopted by the revenue authorities cannot be found fault with and I find no
Decision
merit in the writ petition. 15. If however the petitioners approaches Civil Court and secures a declaratory decree regarding the extent of their landholding in Sy.Nos.135 and 137, it is needless to state that the Revenue Authorities would - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:9740 WP No. 1927 of 2025 be bound by such decree provided the same is passed against the persons in whose name the entries exist. 16. This writ petition is therefore dismissed subject to the above. 17. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19