- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15589 WP No. 6575 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 6575 OF 2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: MUNITAYAMMA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS 1. SRI. GURUMURTHY REDDY.M., AGED 55 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, 2. SRI. MUNIRAJU.M, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, 3. SMT. VIJAYLAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA., W/O SATISH, No.1 TO 3 ALL R/AT No.13, GOVINDA SHETTY PALYA, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE-560 100. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G.R.VENKATESH MURTHY., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15589 WP No. 6575 of 2018 AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE SOUTH, FOURTH FLOOR, DC OFFICE BUILDING REVENUE COMPLEX, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE 4. K.L SHANKAR S/O LAGHUMAYYA, AGED MAJOR, R/AT KONAPPANA AGARAHARA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; R-4 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN REVISION PETITION NO.55/2010-11 ON THE FILES OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE.CALL FOR RECORDS IN R.A.(S) 97/2009-10 ON THE FILES OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15589 WP No. 6575 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. A Registered Gift Deed dated 14.07.1955 was executed in favour of the petitioner Munithayamma. However, the khata does not appear to have been transferred on the basis of the Registered Gift Deed. Subsequently, a Registered Sale Deed dated 28.11.1964 was executed in favor of the petitioner in respect of the very same land. Pursuant to this Registered Sale Deed, the revenue entries were mutated vide M.R.No.3/1966-67 and the name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records. 2. As the matter stood thus, it appears that the petitioner had instituted a suit in O.S.No.369/2000 seeking for a decree of injunction against respondent No.4 K.L.Shankar herein and this suit was dismissed. It is also forthcoming from the records that the appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15589 WP No. 6575 of 2018 3. Ultimately, the judgment rendered in O.S.No.369/2000 and R.A.No.215/2009 was challenged before this Court in R.S.A.No.225/2011 and this Court by an order dated 02.03.2017, passed an order in the following terms: "13. The appeal is partly allowed. The judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant in O.S.No.369/2000 for permanent injunction are hereby confirmed. But, the observations of the Courts below that the existence of the suit property and the plaintiff's title and possession over the same is not proved are hereby quashed. No order as to costs." 4. As could be seen from the said order, though this Court affirmed the finding that the petitioner would not be entitled for a decree of injunction, the observations made by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court regarding the title of the plaintiff and possession having not been proved, was set aside. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15589 WP No. 6575 of 2018 5. However, on the basis of the decree of dismissal passed in O.S.No.369/2000, respondent No.4 approached the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar proceeded to pass an order on 14.07.2009 directing the name of respondent No.4 to be entered on the premise that the suit filed by the petitioner had been dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred to the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 21.04.2010, allowed the appeal in part and directed that the khata of property bearing Sy.No.48 measuring 3 guntas should be registered in the name of the petitioner on the basis of the Registered Gift Deed dated 18.07.1955. 6. However, after the passing of the said order, the Assistant Commissioner proceeded to issue a corrigendum stating that the katha should not be changed in the name of the petitioner, if not already - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15589 WP No. 6575 of 2018 affected. He also observed that if it is already affected, it shall deemed to have been cancelled. Being aggrieved by this corrigendum, the petitioner preferred a revision to the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the revision. As a consequence of which, the present writ petition is filed. 7. As could be noticed above, the entry in favor of the petitioner was made on the basis of a Registered Sale Deed dated 28.11.1964 vide M.R.No.3/1966-67. If the name of the petitioner had been entered on the basis of a Registered Sale Deed way back in year 1966-67 the said entry can be deleted only if there is a subsequent conveyance by the petitioner or if there is a decree passed by competent Civil Court against the petitioner and also declaring title in favor of a third party. Merely because a suit for injunction filed by the petitioner was dismissed, that would not entitle the Revenue Authorities to substitute the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15589 WP No. 6575 of 2018 name of the petitioner with the name of the defendant in the suit. 8. As already stated above, the entry in the revenue records should be either on the basis of a registered instrument or on the basis of a decree passed by competent Civil Court. In the instant case, however, the Tahsildar has proceeded to pass an order directing the name of respondent No.4 who was a defendant in O.S.No.369/2000 to be entered only because O.S.No.369/2000 was dismissed. It is also noticed above, ultimately in R.S.A.No.225/2011, this Court has set aside the observation made by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court regarding the finding that the petitioner had no title over the property. 9. In that view of the matter, the Revenue Authorities are erred in deleting the name of the petitioner despite there being a Sale Deed in her favor. Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15589 WP No. 6575 of 2018 the Revenue Authorities are directed to enter the name of the petitioner on the basis of the Sale Deed as had been done vide M.R.No.3/1966-67. 10. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. 11. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1