- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2301 WP No. 504 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.504 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: T. C. MAHABALESHWAR S/O. LATE T.V. CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.220, LALITHA NILAYA, 4TH MAIN, GANGA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HONNALI TALUK, HONNALI, DAVANGERE DISTRICT, DAVANGERE - 577 217. 2. MR. T.C. GANGADHAR S/O. LATE T.V. CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA, AGED MAJOR R/AT.NO.133, NALKUDRE VILLAGE, TALUK-CHANNAGIRI, DAVANGERE - 577 544. 3. MRS. DAKSHAYANI W/O. DR. T.H. ESHWARAPAA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT.1659/35, VIDYANAGAR MAIN ROAD, Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2301 WP No. 504 of 2025 TARALABALU BADAVANE, DAVANGERE-577005. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE - A THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HONALLI DATED 19/09/2024 IN REF. NO. RRTCR-449/2024- 2025 WITH A DIRECTION TO CAUSE NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER IN THE RRTCR PROCEEDINGS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for respondent No.1. 2. The captioned petition is filed assailing the order of the respondent No.1/Assistant Commissioner who has directed to mutate the name of the respondent No.3 based on registered gift deed by taking cognizance of the judgment rendered in O.S.No.75/2020. 3. The subject matter of the petition is agricultural land bearing Sy.No.157/2. Petitioner asserts that the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2301 WP No. 504 of 2025 petition land is a coparcenery property and petitioner has acquired right through a registered partition deed dated 17.06.1997. Petitioner citing the interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in RFA.No.1788/2024 would point out that the order of the Assistant Commissioner clearly contravenes the interim order granted by this Court and therefore, the order of the Assistant Commissioner is unsustainable. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondent. Perused the writ papers. 5. The primary issue that necessitates consideration is whether the action of respondent No.1/Assistant Commissioner in proceeding with the mutation of the property in favour of respondent No.3, based on the gift deed executed by respondent No.2, and further directing such mutation by acknowledging the dismissal of the suit filed by the petitioner, warrants any interference. In this regard, it is unequivocally clear that the answer must be an emphatic ‘No'. The Assistant - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2301 WP No. 504 of 2025 Commissioner’s actions are in accordance with established legal principles and procedure enumerated under Section 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 6. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has already availed the benefit of an interim order from the Division Bench, which restrains the respondents from alienating the subject property. This argument, however, does not hold merit for several reasons. The petitioner’s original suit challenging the validity of the gift deed, in O.S. No.75/2020, has been dismissed by a detailed judgment and decree dated 07.06.2024. Following this dismissal, the petitioner has appropriately pursued his legal remedy by filing an appeal in RFA No.1788/2024. While the Division Bench has indeed granted an interim order restraining the respondents from alienating the property pending the resolution of the appeal, such an order does not, in any manner, obstruct the statutory authority of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2301 WP No. 504 of 2025 Assistant Commissioner to effectuate mutation proceedings based on a duly registered gift deed. 7. The crucial question for determination, therefore, is whether the interim order granted by the Division Bench, which restrains the private respondents from alienating the property, constitutes a bar for the Assistant Commissioner to proceed with mutating the name of respondent No.3 in the revenue records based on the registered gift deed executed by respondent No.2. Upon a thorough examination of the matter, it is evident that the answer to this question must also be in the negative. An interim restraint order concerning alienation pertains to the transfer of ownership or creation of third- party rights. It does not preclude the Assistant Commissioner from recognizing the legal effect of a valid and subsisting registered document, such as a gift deed, for the limited purpose of revenue record mutation. 8. In this context, the action of the Assistant Commissioner in taking cognizance of the gift deed - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2301 WP No. 504 of 2025 executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.3 and effectuating the corresponding mutation in favour of respondent No.3 is entirely within the scope of the statutory authority vested in the office. The petitioner’s challenge to the validity of the gift deed has culminated in the dismissal of his suit, and as such, there exists no legal impediment to the Assistant Commissioner’s action in recognizing the transaction. However, it must be noted that the mutation effected in favour of respondent No.3 is necessarily subject to the outcome of the pending appeal in RFA No.1788/2024. Any rights or entitlements arising from the mutation will ultimately depend on the adjudication of the appellate proceedings. 9. With these observations, writ petition stands dismissed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2