- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5654 WP No. 1001 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 1001 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI L KRISHNA S/O LINGAIAH. AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT. CHAMUNDI HILL KASABA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-570 010 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. THYAGARAJA B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANASOUDHA BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-570005. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSURU SUB-DIVISION MYSURU-570005. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU-570005. 5. SRI. L. MAHADEVASWAMY S/O LATE D.LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5654 WP No. 1001 of 2025 6. SMT. SUBBALAKSHMIDEVI W/O L.MAHADEVASWAMY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS THE RESPONDENTS 5 & 6 ARE R/AT CHAMUNDI HILL, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-570010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.G. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5 & C/R6 SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 19.11.2024 IN R.P.NO. 77/2022 PASSED BY THE R-2 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNX-P. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner is tracing right and title in the petition land through his mother Chamundamma. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner, who has reversed the order of respondent No.3- Assistant Commissioner. 2. Facts leading to the case are as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5654 WP No. 1001 of 2025 The petitioner has furnished family tree and the relevant portion is culled out, which is as under: UÁæªÀÄ: ZÁªÀÄÄAr¨ÉlÖ ºÉÆç½: PÀ¸À¨Á vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ: ªÀåªÀ¸ÁAiÀÄ ªÀA±ÀªÀÈ zÉêÀAiÀÄå (ೌ) ¥ÀÄlÖgÀ¸ÀªÀÄä (ೌ) r. °AUÀ¥Àà r. zÉêÀAiÀÄå r. ¸ÀħâAiÀÄå ZÁªÀÄÄAqÀªÀÄä 92 (ೌ) (ೌ) («ªÁ»vÉ) aPÀÌzÉêÀªÀÄä zÉëÃgÀªÀÄä ZÁªÀÄÄAqÀªÀÄä (ೌ) 65 62 ªÀĺÀzÉêÀ¸Áé«Ä ªÀÄPÀ̽®è ªÀÄPÀ̽gÀĪÀÅ¢®è 45 ªÀµÀð F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ªÀA±ÀªÀÈPÀë ¸ÀvÀåªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉUÀ½zÀÝ°è £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆuÉUÁgÀ£ÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. 3. The petitioner claims to be the son of one Chamundamma, who is the daughter of Smt. Puttarasamma, the original owner of the property in dispute. It is undisputed that the property was owned by Smt. Puttarasamma, who had three sons and one - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5654 WP No. 1001 of 2025 daughter, named Chamundamma. The private respondents, however, assert that upon the death of Puttarasamma, Chamundamma, the petitioner’s mother, consented to the mutation of the property in favor of the three sons, thereby relinquishing her claim over it. The mutation in favor of the three sons was carried out in 1980, and it was contended that Chamundamma did not object to the mutation at that time. Moreover, the private respondents argue that Chamundamma officially relinquished her share of the property in 1999. These are critical details that must be considered when determining whether the petitioner can rightfully claim a share in the property. While the petitioner seeks to assert a claim over the property of his maternal grandmother, the issues of inheritance and the validity of the mutation require a thorough legal analysis, particularly as it pertains to the petitioner’s rights. The petitioner must seek appropriate legal recourse through a civil suit before the competent court to resolve these disputes, as the issues raised are civil in nature and not within the purview of this Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5654 WP No. 1001 of 2025 4. The Assistant Commissioner, in addressing the petitioner’s grievance, has passed an order directing the restoration of the name of Puttanarasamma in the land records. However, this order is fundamentally flawed, as it fails to take into account the fact that the mutation effected in 1980 only reflected the names of Puttanarasamma’s three sons, who inherited the property. This mutation, executed in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, had the effect of reflecting the names of three sons, and no challenge or objection to this transfer was raised at the time by Chamundamma, the petitioner’s mother. Therefore, the order of the Assistant Commissioner, which effectively seeks to reverse the mutation without addressing the key issue of the legitimacy of the inheritance and mutation as it stood since 1980, is legally unsound and contrary to the provisions outlined under Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The Court, in this context, finds that the petitioner must seek appropriate redressal of his grievance by filing a civil suit in the competent - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5654 WP No. 1001 of 2025 jurisdiction, where the issues of inheritance, relinquishment, and mutation can be properly adjudicated based on the relevant laws and factual determinations. Consequently, the Court deems it fit to set aside the Assistant Commissioner’s order and directs the petitioner to pursue the matter in the civil courts for a comprehensive resolution. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NMS