- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15251 WP No. 2186 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 2186 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. K.R. SHIVARUDRARADYA S/O LATE K.R. RACHUTTIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.36, KALAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE NANDAGUDI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN-562 122. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR .K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING 1ST FLOOR, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU-562 110. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA, PIN-561 203. 3. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK K.R. PURAM BENGALURU-560 036. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15251 WP No. 2186 of 2025 4. REVENUE INSPECTOR NANDAGUDI CIRCLE HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN-562 122. 5. SRI. SHIVAPRASAD S/O LATE B.K. SHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT KALAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE NANDAGUDI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN-562 122. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. MANJUNATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SMT. MAMATHA .N, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2024 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN RP NO. 27/2024, ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R-3 TO RESTORE THE REVENUE RECORDS IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY. NO. 35, MEASURING 3 ACRE 27 GUNTAS INCLUDING 2 GUNTAS OF KARAB, SITUATED AT KALAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, AS PER MR NO. T25/2023-24, ANNEXURE-P. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15251 WP No. 2186 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. It is not in dispute that on 25.07.1970 a sale deed was executed in favour of Shivaiah, the father of respondent No.5 herein. The Thasildar proceeded to mutate the name of Shivaiah on the basis of the sale deed in the year 2022-23 and, as a consequence, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal. 2. It was the case of the petitioner that the property was essentially purchased by his brother Shivaiah and the decision of the authorities to mutate only the name of Shivaiah and remove the existing names was incorrect. 3. This plea of the petitioner was accepted by the Assistant Commissioner and an order was passed that the entries should be mutated in favour of Shivaiah and his brothers jointly. 4. It may be pertinent to state here that the Assistant Commissioner did take notice of the fact that the suit - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15251 WP No. 2186 of 2025 in O.S. No.325/2021 had been filed by the petitioner and same was pending adjudication. 5. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has preferred Revision before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, by the impugned order, has allowed the Revision and has held that since there is a civil suit in O.S. No.325/2021 pending, the entries would ultimately abide by the result of the said suit and since there was a sale deed in favour of Shivaiah, and since he was no more, the entries would have to continue only in the name of the legal heir of Shivaiah. 6. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. Since it is not in dispute that a registered deed has been executed in favour of Shivaiah, it is obvious that the revenue entries would have to reflect his name in the records. Since it is not in dispute that - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15251 WP No. 2186 of 2025 Shivaiah is no more, the name of his son Shivaprasad will have to be entered in the revenue records. 8. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner herein claims that the property in question was the property acquired jointly on behalf of the family and they also have a right in this particular property. The fact remains that this claim of the petitioner is yet to be adjudicated though he has filed a suit in O.S. No.325/2021. 9. If the petitioner were to succeed in O.S. No.325/2021 and a decree of partition is granted, obviously the revenue entries would have to be mutated in accordance with the decree and so long as there is no decree in favour of the petitioner, the name of the purchaser i.e., Shivaiah, and since he is dead, his legal heirs names will have to be entered. The reasoning of the Deputy Commissioner to this effect cannot be found fault with. I find no ground to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15251 WP No. 2186 of 2025 entertain this Writ Petition. This Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 10. It is needless to state that the entries that are made pursuant to the impugned orders will always be subject to the result of O.S. No.325/2021. It is also needless to state that any observations made by the authorities would bind the Civil Court. 11. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35