- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1387 WP No. 42 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.42 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.PUTTAMMA W/O LATE KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK AGRICULTURIST R/AT NAGASAMUDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI ANEKERE POST CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116 2. SRI.SHIVALINGEGOWDA S/O LATE KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/AT NAGASAMUDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI ANEKERE POST CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.HANUMANTHAPPA HARAVI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1387 WP No. 42 of 2025 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573116 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN SUB DIVISION HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573116 4. THE TAHASILDHAR CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573116 5. SMT.LAKKAMMA W/O LATE NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NAGASAMUNDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MANJUNATH K, HCGP FOR R.1 TO R.4; SRI.VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R.5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OF IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-B BEARING NO.R.P.34/2014-15 DATED 29.07.2021 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1387 WP No. 42 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER In the captioned writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the orders of respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner, who has restored the name of respondent No.5 based on the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.448/2012 and confirmed by the Appellate Court in R.A.No.15/2021. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for private respondent No.5 and learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 3. The short point that needs consideration at the hands o this Court is: Whether petitioners are entitled for any indulgence, at this juncture, having suffered two concurrent decrees at the hands of the competent Civil Courts merely because - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1387 WP No. 42 of 2025 second appeal is filed by the petitioners in RSA No.184/2024? My answer is emphatically no. 4. Respondent No.5’s name was reflected in the RTC and respondent No.5 asserts that the petition property is her ancestral property. 5. The petitioners herein filed an appeal before respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner, who has entertained an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and ordered to mutate the name of the petitioners. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner, respondent No.5 filed a suit in O.S.No.448/2012 seeking relief of declaration and consequential relief of injunction. The Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 05.03.2021. Assailing the judgment and decree of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1387 WP No. 42 of 2025 Trial Court, the petitioners herein preferred an appeal in R.A.No.15/2021. The Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal thereby affirmed the decree passed in O.S.No.448/2012. 7. Based on the judgments and decrees rendered in O.S.No.448/2012 and R.A.No.15/2021, respondent No.5 submitted a varadi to respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner, annexing copies of these judgments. Respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner, upon taking cognizance of the judgments passed by the competent Civil Courts, which unequivocally declared respondent No.5 as the absolute owner in possession of the petition property, exercised the statutory power vested under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Recognizing the binding nature of the Civil Court decrees, respondent No.2 proceeded to allow the revision petition filed by respondent No.5, thereby setting aside the order of respondent No.3 – Assistant - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1387 WP No. 42 of 2025 Commissioner. Consequently, a direction was issued to restore the name of respondent No.5 in the RTC. 8. It is imperative that revenue authorities, as custodians of land records, are duty-bound to effect necessary changes in land records to reflect the rights determined by competent Civil Courts. When a Civil Court decree adjudicates ownership and possession conclusively, it attains primacy and must be implemented by the revenue authorities without hesitation. Failure to do so would not only contravene the law but also undermine the sanctity of judicial pronouncements. In this context, the actions of respondent No.2 in recognizing and acting upon the decrees of the Civil Courts reflect adherence to the principles of legal finality and procedural propriety. Such steps ensure that the land records maintained under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act align with the judicially determined rights of parties. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1387 WP No. 42 of 2025 9. Having noticed these significant details, this Court is of the view that respondent No.5 is entitled to seek restoration of her name in the RTC based on the judgments rendered by the Civil Courts. There shall be no impediment for the petitioners to seek restoration of their names subject to outcome of the pending second appeal in RSA No.184/2024. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33