- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15427 WP No. 25070 of 2016 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. 25070 OF 2016 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. MR K IBRAHIM SAB AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS S/O LATE KASIM SAB C/O SUNNIBUJAN DOOR NO.1912, 2ND C CROSS VINAYAKANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 030 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.LAKSHMINARAYANA., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. BOJANNA K J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE-560 001 3. SMT. PRERAMBI AGED ABOUT 85 YRS W/O LATE SYED BASHEER HANDENAHALLI VILLAGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK-563101. 4. THE THASILDAR HOSAKOTE TALUK, HOSAKTE-563101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1, R-2 & R-4; SRI. RAVINDRANATH.K., ADVOCATE FOR R-3) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15427 WP No. 25070 of 2016 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.21.3.2016 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN ALLOWING THE R.P.NO.129/2008-09 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-E, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. An order of mutation was made in favour of the 3rd respondent vide MR.36/2005-06. It is not in dispute that this order of mutation was made on the basis of an unregistered Partition Deed dated 23.07.1993. 2. It is also the admitted case of both the parties that the land bearing Sy.No.72 originally belonged to Aminabi, the mother of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he and his two sisters had instituted suit in O.S.No.921/1991 and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15427 WP No. 25070 of 2016 the said suit ended in a compromise decree under which the petitioner was declared to be the owner of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.72 and his two sisters were held to be entitled to 20 guntas separately in Sy.Nos.72 and 71/1 and on the basis of this decree, the mutation had been effected. 4. It was the case of the petitioner that without there being any justification, MR.No.36/2005-06 was made and that too without notice to the petitioner and as a consequence, he had preferred an appeal and the Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal and directed that the entries be mutated in accordance with the terms of compromise decree in O.S.No.921/1991 and ordered restoration of entries as per MR.1/1992-93, which had been made pursuant to said decree of compromise. 5. Before the Assistant Commissioner, the 3rd respondent chose not to appear or file any objections. However, the 3rd respondent has - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15427 WP No. 25070 of 2016 thereafter proceeded to file a revision questioning the order of the Assistant Commissioner and putting forth the plea that there was a partition between her and the petitioner and as a result MR.No.35/2005-06 was effected and the same could not be questioned. The Deputy Commissioner has accepted this plea and allowed the revision and as a consequence, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Since it is not in dispute that the land in question originally belonged to the mother of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, the decree that was passed in O.S.No.921/1991 in which the mother of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent was a party cannot be overcome. If there is a decree between the khatedar and her son in which he has been held to be entitled to 2 acres, the said decree will have to be given effect to. On the other hand, it is the case of the 3rd respondent that there was a subsequent Partition Deed between the petitioner and herself and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15427 WP No. 25070 of 2016 this has to be given effect to. However, this Partition Deed was not admitted by the petitioner and moreover, it was an unregistered Partition Deed. In that view of the matter, the Deputy Commissioner could not have directed the entries to be made in accordance with the disputed unregistered Partition Deed dated 23.07.1993. Consequently, the order of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained and the same is set aside and as a consequence, the order of the Assistant Commissioner shall stand restored. 7. Liberty is however reserved to the 3rd respondent to approach the Civil Court and secure a decree that she had obtained the property in question under the terms of the Partition Deed and she were to get the declaration from the Competent Court that she had obtained the land in question under the terms unregistered Partition Deed, obviously the entries would have to abide by the result of such suit. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15427 WP No. 25070 of 2016 8. Subject to the above, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57