- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17013 WP No. 1264 of 2017 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. 1264 OF 2017 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. G. KEMPAIAH S/O GANGANNA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 2. SHRI. GURUSIDDAIAH S/O GANGANNA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT LAKKUR GARDEN SOMPURA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 123. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. L. NARASIMHAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.A. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING DR B.R AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 001. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17013 WP No. 1264 of 2017 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION DODDABALLAPUR BANGALORE DISTRICT-561 203. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR NADA KACHERI, SOMPURA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 123. 5. SHRI. SIDDAGANGAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY LRs 5(A) SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 5(B) BASAVARAJU S/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 5(C) REVANASIDDAIAH S/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 5(D) SOMASHEKARAIAH S/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 5(E) GANGADAR S/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R5(A) TO (E) ARE R/AT LAKKUR TOTA, LAKKUR GARDEN SOMPURA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK-562 123. BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 5(F) SMT. RAJAMMA W/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17013 WP No. 1264 of 2017 R/O TIPPUR VILLAGE GUBBI TALUK-572 216. TUMKUR DISTRICT 5(G) SMT. GANGAMMA W/O T.V.GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O NO.214, B.A.GUDIPALYA TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 101. [CAUSE TITLE AMENDED V/O/D 18.11.2021] …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. JAYARAJ .D.S, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 AUTHORITY - DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, DATED 19.12.2016 IN REVISION PETITION NO.86/2013-14 VIDE ANNEXURE-K. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. On 03.04.2009, the Deputy Tahsildar has passed the order directing the khatha to be entered in favour of the legal representatives of khatedar Ganganna. Being aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred by Siddagangaiah, the 5th respondent - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17013 WP No. 1264 of 2017 herein contending that his father had purchased the said property under a registered Sale Deed dated 17.01.1944. The Assistant Commissioner, however, dismissed the appeal after observing that Siddagangaiah had in fact instituted a suit in OS.No.58/2009 seeking for a declaration and therefore, he could not have any grievance regarding the names of the legal representatives of deceased khatedar being mutated in the revenue record. He also observed that it was obvious that the entries that were made in favour of legal heirs of deceased khatedar Ganganna would always be subject to the result of the suit. 2. However, this order has been reversed by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the revenue authorities were bound to give effect to the Sale Deed even though the sale was of the year 1944 and hence, he reversed the order of the Deputy Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner and directed that - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17013 WP No. 1264 of 2017 the name of Siddagangaiah be entered as per Sale Deed of the year 1944. 3. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that though Revanna, the father of Siddagangaiah claimed to have purchased the property in question on 17.01.1944 from one Siddappa, no entries were mutated in his favour from 1944 till 2009. The material on record indicates that RTCs from 1968-69 reflected the name of only Ganganna. If the name of the Siddagangaiah’s father was never reflected in the revenue record and only the name of Ganganna was reflected in the revenue record, on his death, it is obvious that only his legal representatives could come on record. 4. The Deputy Commissioner has committed an error in holding that the Revenue Authorities were to give effect to the Sale Deed irrespective of the period during which the Sale Deed was executed. The Deputy Commissioner has not even given a finding - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17013 WP No. 1264 of 2017 as to whether the person who had executed the Sale Deed in favour of Siddagangaiah’s father was the khatedar. 5. Having regard to the fact that Siddagangaiah has instituted a suit in O.S.No.58/2009 seeking a declaration that he was the owner of the property, by virtue of purchase made by his father - Revanna, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have maintained the order of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Tahsildar and made them, subject to the result of the said suit. 6. It is to be noticed here that the khatha in the instant case stood in the name of Ganganna right from 1968-69 till his death and therefore, there was no justification for the Deputy Commissioner to interfere with the mutation in which the names of legal heirs of deceased khatedar were brought on record. 7. In that view of the matter, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is set aside and the order of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17013 WP No. 1264 of 2017 Deputy Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner shall stand restored. It is also clarified that the entries in favour of the petitioners would always be subject to the result of the suit in O.S.No.58/2009 and the revenue entries would abide by the decree to be passed in the suit. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 94