1 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.4194 OF 2017 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. D.N.ASHWATHANARAYANA REDDY S/O DODDANARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT PERESANDRA VILLAGE MANDIKAL HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK-562 101. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVASA REDDY .P.V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA -562 101. 2 . THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT FOR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 101. 3 . ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR SURVEY DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101. 2 4 . TAHASILDAR CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR-562 101. 5 . V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY S/O. LATE. VENKATAREDDY 6 . V. INDIRA RAMANA REDDY S/O. LATE. VENKATAREDDY 7 . V. LAKSHMIPATHI REDDY S/O. LATE. VENKATAREDDY 8 . 8(A) V. NARASIMHA REDDY SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIR RATHNAMMA W/O V. NARASIMHA REDDY 9 . KAMALAMMA W/O. LATE. V. SHIVARAMA REDDY NO. 5 TO 9 ARE R/AT HIRENAGAVALLI VILLAGE MANDIKAL HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK-562 101. 10 . D. CHANNAKRISHNAMMA W/O CHANNAPPA .N R/AT NO. 6, 2ND CROSS, 24TH MAIN PALANAHALLI TOTA, (MARUTHINAGAR) VENKATALA, BANGALORE-560 064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. B.N.SURESH BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R7, R8(A) AND R9; SRI. S.A.SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R10) 3 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.8.2011 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND THE ORDER DATED 7.3.2013 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND THE COMMUNICATION DATED.26.12.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-R AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.02.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CAV ORDER The captioned petition is filed assailing the order of the respondent No.2/Deputy Director of Land Records vide Annexure-H which is confirmed by the respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 26.12.2016. Consequently, a mandamus is sought against respondent No.2 to conduct fresh phodi and durasti in respect of Sy.No.91/2 in terms of boundaries shown in the sale deed dated 22.03.1948 and sale deed dated 31.07.1974. 4 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: It is not in dispute that one Reddy Avalappa @ Avala Reddy, grandfather of petitioner was the absolute owner of land bearing Sy.No.91/2 measuring 3 acres 2 guntas which included 10 guntas of kharab land. Petitioner's grandfather sold 30 guntas of land in favour of one N.Venkata Reddy who is the father of respondent Nos.5 to 7 vide registered sale deed dated 22.03.1948. After the death of original owner Reddy Avalappa, his widow and all family members including petitioner's father sold an extent of 39 guntas to the mother of respondent No.10 under registered sale deed dated 31.07.1974. 3. Petitioner's grievance is that after respondent No.10's mother's namely Bachamma obtained sale deed, she got the land illegally phodied to an extent of 39 guntas, contrary to the boundaries reflected in the sale deed dated 31.07.1974 vide Annexure-B. Petitioner therefore alleged that having noticed illegal phodi conducted by the survey 5 officials, petitioner's brother preferred appeal before Deputy Director of Land Records. The petitioner contends that respondent No.2 rightly set aside the phodi vide order dated 20.03.1994 and directed to conduct fresh phodi and durasti by issuing notice to all the interested parties. 4. Petitioner also asserts that though 30 guntas was sold in favour of one Venkata Reddy under 1948 sale deed, they continued to be in physical possession. The present petitioner therefore asserted that he filed a comprehensive suit seeking declaration by adverse possession. Petitioner alleges that pending this suit, respondent Nos.5 to 7 and husband of respondent Nos.8 and 9 having illegally got 30 guntas of land further partitioned and phodi is obtained by assigning new Sy.No.91/2A1 and it is further divided into six parts allotting 6 guntas each within the family of respondent Nos.5 to 9 which also includes kharab land. 6 5. Petitioner assailing this phodi preferred appeal before the respondent No.2 in Appeal No.24/2010-11. The inter se phodi in the family of respondent Nos.5 to 9 was subjected to enquiry before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 proceeded to reject the appeal. Petitioner preferred a revision before respondent No.1. The revision petition is also dismissed. These orders were challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.25365/2015. 6. As the matter stood thus, petitioner moved an application before the respondent No.4/Tahsildar questioning the hissa survey numbers. The respondent No.4/Tahsildar cancelled the hissa survey numbers and restored original mutation and this prompted petitioner to withdraw the petition filed in W.P.No.25365/2015. This compelled respondent Nos.6 to 10 to approach the respondent No.3/Assistant Director of Land Records by way of representation indicating that Sy.No.91/2A1 to A6 is 7 illegally merged with Sy.No.91/2. Petitioner tendered objections. Respondent No.3 referring to the hissa proceedings undertaken by the survey officials directed to restore hissa mutations strictly aligning with the phodi proceedings. This is confirmed by the respondent No.2. 7. This petition is filed assailing the order of the respondent No.3/Assistant Director of Land Records which is confirmed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Director of Land Records and respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner. 8. Learned counsel reiterating the grounds would point out that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have ignored that the hissa and phodi vide Annexures-C and F was undertaken without issuing notice to the petitioner and these phodi and durasti is undertaken without taking cognizance of title documents. Petitioner's counsel also contends that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have also not examined that durasti and hissa was done without 8 physically surveying the respective portion of the land and the survey sketch produced at Annexures-C and F was illegally prepared in the office of respondent No.3. 9. Per contra, respondent No.10 who is tracing title to an extent of 39 guntas through his mother Bachamma based on registered sale deed dated 31.07.1974 reiterating the stand taken in the statement of objections has taken this Court through the evidence tendered by the petitioner in O.S.No.75/2015. Counsel appearing for respondent No.10 would point out that the petitioner acknowledges his step sister's right to an extent of 30 guntas in Sy.No.91/2B measuring 39 guntas. He would further point out that petitioner admits physical possession of respondent No.10. Learned counsel for respondent No.10 therefore justifying the orders of the authorities would point out that these mutations strictly align with the phodi conducted vide Annexures-C and F and therefore, would not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. Learned counsel for 9 respondent No.10 has also referred to the additional documents along with the memo dated 11.12.2023. He has specifically referred to the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.75/2015. 10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the private respondents and learned AGA. 11. On closer examination of the records, petitioner's claim appears to be two fold. Though petitioner acknowledges that his grandfather alienated 30 guntas of land to respondent Nos.5 to 9, petitioner is asserting title and physical possession by way of adverse possession. A feeble attempt is also made by the petitioner to substantiate that this phodi conducted vide Annexures-C and F is contrary to the boundaries indicated in the sale deed dated 22.03.1948. The main dispute appears to be between petitioner and respondent Nos.5 to 9. Petitioner is 10 seriously contesting the phodi conducted pursuant to inter se partition obtained by the family of respondent Nos.5 to 9. To overcome this phodi, petitioner is placing reliance on the sale deed executed in favour of mother of respondent No.10. Though the description appears to be a bit confusing, however on closer examination of the sale deed obtained by the mother of respondent No.10, the phodi conducted vide Annexure-C clearly tallies with the boundaries indicated in the sale deed obtained by Bachamma dated 31.07.1974. 12. On meticulous examination of phodi at Annexure-C to the west, a portion of 39 guntas sold to respondent No.10's mother, land owned by Chikka Biddappa is located to the West. Therefore, if 39 guntas of land purchased by respondent No.10's mother is identified, then this Court needs to examine the location of remaining property held by the petitioner's family and 30 guntas of land purchased by respondent Nos.5 to 9. 11 13. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not raised any challenge against the fresh phodi conducted as per Annexure-F. This phodi was carried out based on the inter se family partition reported by respondent Nos.5 to 9, who collectively hold 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.2A1. Upon examining Annexure-F, it is evident that the northern portion of Sy.No.2A1 has been divided into multiple sub- survey numbers. Specifically, the land on the southern side of Sy.No.2A1 has been allotted to the petitioner’s family, whereas the northern portion has been subdivided into five parts, now designated as Sy.Nos.2A2 to 2A6. Despite this clear division, the petitioner has chosen not to question the validity of the phodi proceedings that resulted in this subdivision. The absence of any challenge to Annexure-F is crucial because the phodi serves as the foundational basis for the subsequent mutation entries. 12 14. Given the above, the primary issue that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner could have approached the revenue authorities to challenge the mutation proceedings without first contesting the phodi recorded in Annexure-F. The mutation process is directly linked to the phodi, as mutations are carried out and certified based on the phodi entries. In this case, the phodi was undertaken at the instance of respondent Nos.5 to 9, who had their 30 guntas of land divided into five portions, each receiving a separate sub-survey number, Sy.Nos.2A2 to 2A6. The logical implication is that unless the phodi itself is questioned and invalidated, the subsequent mutation proceedings arising from it cannot be independently challenged. By choosing to contest only the mutation while leaving the phodi unchallenged, the petitioner’s approach appears procedurally flawed and legally unsustainable. 15. Furthermore, the petitioner’s conduct raises concerns about fairness and consistency. While he 13 acknowledges the sale deed executed by his father in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 9, he has simultaneously initiated a suit claiming title over the same 30 guntas of land by asserting adverse possession against respondent Nos.5 to 9. This contradictory stance suggests that the petitioner’s actions may be motivated by an attempt to establish possessory rights through legal proceedings rather than by a genuine challenge to title. It is apparent that the petitioner has undertaken this legal exercise, possibly to gather evidence in support of his possessory claims. However, since mutation entries merely reflect the existing division of land as recorded in the phodi, they cannot be annulled unless the phodi itself is set aside. As the petitioner has failed to challenge the phodi, his claim against the mutation proceedings is untenable. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and sees no reason to interfere in the matter. 14 16. Writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA