Writ Petition No. 8812 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16787 WP No. 8812 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 8812 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. RAMESH R S/O RANGASWAMAIAH, AGED 53 YEARS, R/O HENCHINAPALYA, POST DIBBURU, KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT- 572 101. 2. SMT. CHINTHAMMA D/O LATE RANGANNA W/O SIDDAPPA, AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT MUDIGERE VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT 572 101. 3. SMT GOURAMMA D/O LATE RANGANNA W/O ESHWARAIAH, AGED 59 YEARS, R/AT MUDIGERE VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT 572 101. (BY SMT. KAMADOLLI MANJULADEVI RAMAPPA., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572 101. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16787 WP No. 8812 of 2025 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR SUB-DIVISION, TUMKUR-572 101 4. THE THAHASHILDAR GRADE-2, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR-572 101.
Legal Reasoning
5. SRI KEMPANNA S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, MAJOR, R/AT MUDIGERE VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT 572 101. (BY SRI. K.MANJUNATH., HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI. YOGESH U KOTEMATH., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR R-5) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 IN REVISION PETITION NO.166/2023 DTD. 28.10.2024 VIDE ANNX-E IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA 1. 2. ORAL ORDER These facts are not in dispute: A sale deed appears to have been executed on 11.10.1933 by Suryanarayanappa in favour of Kempalayya. However, the revenue entries were not changed pursuant to this alleged sale deed and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16787 WP No. 8812 of 2025 revenue entries continued in the name of Suryanarayanappa. 3. It is stated that Suryanarayanappa passed away in the year 1950 and, even after his death, his name continued in the records. In the year 2019-20, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 claiming to be the granddaughters of Suryanarayanappa made an application seeking for mutation of the revenue entries in their favor on the ground that they were the legal heirs, who had succeeded to the property. 4. The Tahsildar observed that there was a sale deed of the year 11.10.1933, and he accordingly proceeded to direct maintenance of status quo regarding revenue entries. 5. Though petitioner Nos.2 and 3 did not challenge this order, respondent No.5 who also claims to be the grandson of the purchaser, filed an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16787 WP No. 8812 of 2025 taking note of the facts, disposed of the appeal by exercising his power under Section 136(2) of the Land Revenue Act and directed the name of the grandchildren i.e., Chinthamma and Gowramma’s name be entered in the revenue records since the khata was standing in the name of their grandfather Suryanarayanappa. Being aggrieved by this order, a revision was preferred to the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and directed that the khata should be made in accordance with the final decree that had been passed in O.S.No.32/2019. 6. It may be pertinent to state here that O.S.No.32/2019 was a suit filed by the legal heirs of the purchaser of the sale deed of the year 1933 in which they had entered into a compromise and respondent No.5 was allotted this land. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16787 WP No. 8812 of 2025 7. 8. Being aggrieved by this order of the Deputy Commissioner, the present writ petition is filed. As stated above, though a sale deed is stated to have been executed on 11.10.1933, admittedly till the year 2019, that is almost for a period of 90 years, the revenue entries were not mutated in accordance with the said sale deed. 9. It is also not in dispute that the revenue entries continued in the name of Suryanarayanappa, who stated to have sold the property in the year 1933. If a purchaser has not claimed that his name should be entered in the revenue records for nearly 90 years and when the legal heirs of the Khatedar made an application to get their names mutated, it is obvious that the legal heirs of the purchaser could not have objected to the said claim. 10. The assertion of respondent No.5 that there was a suit filed in O.S.No.32/2019 which ended in a - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16787 WP No. 8812 of 2025 compromise and, therefore, their name was required to be entered in the revenue records cannot be accepted for a simple reason that in this suit the legal heirs of their vendor was not made a party and was essentially a compromise decree. 11. It is to be kept in mind that the suit was filed only in the year 2019 that is 90 years after the sale and this property was sought to be partitioned despite the fact that the revenue entries were not standing in the name of the purchaser. 12. In my view, therefore, the claim that the entries were required to made in accordance with the decree passed in O.S.No.32/2019 cannot be accepted. 13. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 also submits that the actual legal heirs of the vendor Suryanarayanappa had instituted a suit in O.S.No.3/2014, which ended in a dismissal for non- prosecution would by itself indicate that the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16787 WP No. 8812 of 2025 petitioners are not the legal heirs of Suryanarayanappa. 14. In my view, this assertion cannot be accepted for the simple reason that respondent No.5 would be unaware as to who was the legal heirs of Suryanarayanappa are. 15. Consequently, in my view, the order of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained and the order of the Assistant Commissioner will have to be restored. Accordingly, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is set aside and the order of the Assistant Commissioner shall stand restored. 16. This shall however not come in the way of respondent No.5 in filing an appropriate suit for a declaration as against the petitioners herein or any other person, whom he believes are the legal heirs of the original vendor Suryanarayanappa and secure a decree. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16787 WP No. 8812 of 2025 17. If such a decree is obtained from the competent Civil Court, it is needless to state that the revenue entries will accordingly stand mutated. 18. Subject to the above, this writ petition is allowed. 19. It is also open for respondent No.5 to seek for an interim order not only against the legal heirs, but also against any person claiming any interest from the legal heirs of Suryanarayanappa. 20. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending
Decision
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11