Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 3012 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 847 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) WRIT PETITION NO. 1388 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 2932 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 2933 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 3352 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)
IN WP No. 3012/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. JAIBUNNISA W/O. LATE SYED MOHAMMED SHA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
2. SMT. MAHAJABEEN D/O LATE SYED MOHAMMED SHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
3. SMT. SHABANA D/O LATE SYED MOHAMMED SHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
4. SRI. SHABEER PASHA S/O LATE SYED MOHAMMED SHA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
5. SRI. SAMEER PASHA S/O LATE SYED MOHAMMED SHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
6. SRI. JAMEER PASHA S/O LATE SYED MOHAMMED SHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
7. SRI. SHAMEER PASHA S/O LATE SYED MOHAMMED SHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO. 12/1 B STREET, J.J.R. NAGAR BENGALURU SOUTH-560 026. …PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GIREESHA KODGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVANA BEERASANDRA VILLAGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT DEVANAHALLI TALUK-572 114. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. 4. TAHASILDAR TALUK OFFICE, HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114. 5. SMT. INDIRAMMA W/O. LATE H. M. VENKARARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
6. SRI. M. C. VENKARARAMANAPPA S/O. LATE MUNINYAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
7. SRI. M. C. YALLAPPA S/O. LATE MUNINYAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
R5 TO R7 ARE R.AT T. G. LAYOUT, HOSKOTE TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114. 8. SRI. SATHY SHANTHA KUMAR S/O. LATE M. SHANTHA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS NO. 380, AMARAJYOTHI LAYOUT DOMLUR RING ROAD BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560 071. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH .K, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI.
M. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5 TO C/R7;
SRI. SOURABH R. KURUBARAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R8)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2025 IN RP.NO. 220 AND 221/2024 PASSED BY THE R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE-J.
IN WP NO. 847/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. JUNJAPPA .D S/O LATE DODDMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS NO.22, V.R. N CITY, 15TH CROSS KANNURAHALLI MAIN ROAD SANGOLLI RAYANNANAGAR
- 4 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
HOSKOTE TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114. 2. SRI. SYED DAULATH S/O SYED MEER AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS KARNATAKA LAYOUT NEAR AQSA MASJID HOSKOTE TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GIREESHA KODGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BEERASANDRA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT DEVANAHALLI TALUK-572 114. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. 4. TAHASILDAR TALUK OFFICE, HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. MANJUNATH, HCGP)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R4 TO
- 5 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
MUTATE THE NAMES OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE REVENUE RECORDS IN SY NO. 87 NEW NO. 87/1 TO 87/26 TO AN EXTENT OF 6 ACRES IN DANDOPALYA VILLAGE, KOSALA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TQ. IN WP NO. 1388/2025
BETWEEN:
SMT. JAIBUNNISA W/O LATE SYED MOHAMMED SHA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS NO.12/1, B STREET, J. J. R. NAGAR BENGALURU SOUTH-560 026. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIREESHA KODGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVANA BEERASANDRA VILLAGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT DEVANAHALLI TALUK-572 114. 3.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203. 4. TAHASILDAR TALUK OFFICE, HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114. - 6 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
5. SRI. P. MANI S/O PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS WARD NO.22, VARADAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSKOTE TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114. 6. SRI. ESHWAR RAO .N S/O LATE NANJUNDA RAO AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS NO.335, 1ST MAIN ROAD NAGAPPA REDDY LAYOUT KAGGADASAPURA C.V. RAMAN NAGARA BENGALURU NORTH-560093. 7. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS NO.107, HEMAVATHI STREET NEAR DURAVANI MEDICALS RAMAMURTHYNAGAR BENGAGALURU-560016. 8. SRI. B.K. MANJUNATH S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NO.4, 3RD CROSS NEAR ANNAPURNESHWARI BAKARI MALLAMMA COMPOUND RAMAMURTHYNAGAR BENGALURU-560016. 9. SMT. ANITHA W/O S. SURESH @ PANDURANGA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.107, HEMAVATHI STREET NEAR DURAVANI MEDICALS RAMAMURTHYNAGAR, BENGALURU-560016. - 7 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
10. SRI. R. ANAND REDDY S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS NO.42, KAGGADASAPURA C.V.RAMAN NAGARA POST BENGALURU NORTH-560093. 11. SRI. RANGASWAMY S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS NO.185/20, 5TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS DEVANAATHACHAR STREET CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560018. 12. SMT. MANGALARAJ, W/O LATE D. MUNIRAJ AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS NO.1-52-9, NEAR MANGALA DRIVING SCHOOL K.R. LAYOUT, HOSKOTE TOWN BENGALURU-562114. 13. SRI. BHARATRAJ H.M.
S/O LATE D. MUNIRAJ AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS NO.1-52-9, NEAR MANGALA DRIVING SCHOOL K.R. LAYOUT, HOSKOTE TOWN BENGALURU-562114. 14. SRI. BHUVAN RAJ H.M S/O LATE D. MUNIRAJ AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS NO.1-52-9, NEAR MANGALA DRIVING SCHOOL K.R. LAYOUT, HOSKOTE TOWN BENGALURU-562114. 15. SMT.
JAYAMMA W/O R. BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS NO.7, 2ND CROSS, ADITHYA LAYOUT KALKERE MAIN ROAD RAMAMURTHYNAGAR
- 8 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
DURAVANINAGAR BENGALURU-560018. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH .K, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. SOURABH R. KURUBARAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R6, R7, R8, R9, R12, R13, R14 AND R15;
SRI. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R10;
SRI. SRINIVAS M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R11)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2025 IN R.P.NO. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 AND 17/2025 PASSED BY THE R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE-J.
IN WP NO. 2932/2025
BETWEEN:
SMT. JAIBUNNISA W/O LATE SYED MOHAMMED SHA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS NO.12/1, B STREET, J. J. R. NAGAR BENGALURU SOUTH-560 026. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIREESHA KODGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVANA BEERASANDRA VILLAGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT DEVANAHALLI TALUK-572114. - 9 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203. 4. TAHASILDAR TALUK OFFICE, HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114. 5. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI KRISHNA W/O LATE KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 2ND MAIN, KANAKA NAGARA M.V. LAYOUT, HOSAKOTE TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. MANJUNATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2025 IN RP.NO. 27/2025 PASSED BY THE R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE-J.
IN WP NO. 2933/2025
BETWEEN:
SMT. JAIBUNNISA W/O LATE SYED MOHAMMED SHA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS NO.12/1, B STREET, J. J. R. NAGAR BENGALURU SOUTH-560026. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIREESHA KODGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVANA BEERASANDRA VILLAGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT DEVANAHALLI TALUK-572114. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203. 4. TAHASILDAR TALUK OFFICE, HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114. 5. SRI. SADIQ ULLA BAIG S/O SAMI ULLA BAIG AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 2ND MAIN, KANAKA NAGARA M.V. LAYOUT, HOSAKOTE TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. MANJUNATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2025 IN RP.NO. 26/2025 PASSED BY THE R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE-J.
IN WP NO. 3352/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. INDIRAMMA W/O LATE H.M. VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
2. SRI. M.C. VENKATARAMANAPPA S/O LATE MUNINAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
3. SRI. M.C. YELLAPPA S/O LATE MUNINAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
PETITIONERS NO. 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT T.G. EXTENSION, HOSAKOTE TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DY. COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. 4. THE TAHSILDAR HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114. 5. SMT. JAIBUNNISA W/O LATE SYED MOHAMMED SHAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
6. SMT. MEHAJABEEN D/O LATE SYED MOHAMMED SHAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
7. SRI. SHABBER PASHA S/O LATE SYED MOHAMMED SHAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
8.
SMT. JAINAB BEE W/O SHABBER PASHA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
9. SMT. SHABANA W/O LATE SYED MOHAMMED SHAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
10. SRI. SAMEER PASHA S/O LATE SYED MOHAMMED SHAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
11. SMT. SHABANA JAMI W/O SAMEER PASHA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
12. MASTER SYED MOYHI REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER SRI SAMEER PASHA
13. SRI. JAMEER PASHA S/O LATE SYED MOHAMMED SHAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
14. SMT. NAZMA BHANU W/O JAMEER PASHA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
15. KUM. UMME AMMAN REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER JAMEER PASHA
16. KUM. UMME KUSLUM REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER SRI. JAMEER PASHA
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
17. MASTER PEERDOUSE REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER SRI. JAMEER PASHA
R5 TO R17 ARE R/AT DANDUPALYA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU - 562 114. 18. SRI. SAMEER PASHA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O LATE SYED MOHAMMED SHAH R/AT NO. 12/1, B STREET 22ND CROSS, J J R NAGAR BENGALURU SOUTH - 560 026. 19. SMT. HAZEERA BHANU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS W/O SHAMEER PASHA R/AT NO. 12/1, B STREET 22ND CROSS, J J R NAGAR BENGALURU SOUTH - 560 026. 20. SMT. SHAJEEYA TAJ REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER SHAMMER PASHA. 21. SMT. BUSHRA ANAAM REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER SHAMMER PASHA. 22. MASTER SYED ISMAIL REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER SHAMMER PASHA. AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R20 TO R22 ARE R/AT NO. 12/1 B STREET, 22ND CROSS J J R NAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH-560 026. 23. SRI. JUNJAPPA .D AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
S/O LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA R/AT V.R. SUN CITY, 15TH CROSS KANNURAHALLI MAIN ROAD SANGOLLI RAYANNANAGAR, HOSAKOTE TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114. 24. SRI.
SYED DOULATH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O SYED MEER R/AT KARNATAKA LAYOUT NEAR AKSA MASJID, HOSAKOTE TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTIRCT-562 114. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH .K, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. GIREESHA KODGI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R24)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO REVIEW - RECALL THE
ORDER DATED 17/01/2025 IN W.P NO.847/2025 DIRECTING THE 4TH RESPONDENT THEREIN TO MUTATE KHATA ON THE BASIS OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 18/12/2024 EXECUTED IN THE NAME OF RESPONDENT NO.23 AND 24 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS IT RELATE TO THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONERS BEARING SY. NO.87/2 TO AN EXTENT 1 ACRE OF 27 GUNTAS EXCLUSIVE OF 11 GUNTAS OF KHARAB.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL ORDER
1. On 31.03.2022, the Assistant Commissioner appears to have addressed a letter to the Tahsildar to consider the claim of Jaibunnisa, wife of late Syed
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
Mohammed Shah for registering her name as khatedar on the strength of an order dated 03.09.2002 that her husband claimed to have been obtained in L.R.F.I.S.A.K.D.P:20, 23, 3, 8, 7, 6/83- 84, 38/87-88 and L.R.F.18/2002-93.
2. The Tahsildar considered the said request of the Assistant Commissioner and came to the conclusion that though there was an order dated 03.09.2002 conferring occupancy rights in favour of Syed Mohammed Shah, it was noticed that Form-10 had not been issued by the Land Tribunal and on examination of documents, it was found that Sy.No.87, in respect of which occupancy rights have been conferred, had been phoded into 22 sub- numbers i.e., 87/1 to 87/22 and the names of different people were entered as khatedars. He also noticed that several transactions had taken place in respect of these particular lands and therefore, it would be necessary to issue notice to all the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
khatedars and the orders of mutation that had already been passed would have to be set aside in
order to consider the claim of Jaibunnisa. He accordingly, issued an endorsement dated 13.07.2022 to Jaibunnisa. 3. Jaibunnisa preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner, as suggested by the Tahsildar, and in that, she arrayed 20 persons as respondents. In the appeal, though 20 persons were arrayed as respondents, address indicated in the cause title was
"Hosakote Town and Hosakote Taluk". The Assistant Commissioner in his order has observed that he had issued notices to the respondents arrayed therein, but they had not appeared before him. The Assistant Commissioner thereafter took note of the suit that had been filed during the pendency of the appeal i.e., O.S.No.33/2023 and also the decree that was passed thereof on 27.07.2024 and proceeded to direct
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
registration of khatha in the name of Jaibunnisa on the basis of said decree. 4. It may be pertinent to state here that none of the respondents arrayed in the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner were parties in O.S.No.33/2023. 5. It is also not in dispute that the persons, in whose name the khatha had been registered prior to filing of the suit in O.S.No.33/2023 or prior to filing of the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, were arrayed as parties in O.S.No.33/2023. This decree was an uncontested decree inasmuch defendants therein had not entered appearance and contested the proceedings. 6. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the sole defendant in O.S.No.33/2023 was in fact dead and the entire proceedings were a sham, and which were instituted only to secure khatha in the name of Jaibunnissa. - 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
7. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was passed on 21.11.2024 and within a month of the order, Jaibunnisa and her children executed a registered Sale Deed on 18.12.2024 and on the basis of said Sale Deed, attempts were made to transfer the khatha and since the khatha was not transferred, the purchasers from Jaibunnisa namely Junjappa and Syed Daulath approached this Court in W.P.No.847/2025 seeking for issuance of mandamus to the revenue authorities to mutate their names on the basis of the registered Sale Deed. 8.
8. Interestingly, during the pendency of said writ petition, the khatedars challenged the order of the Assistant Commissioner by filing a revision under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 9. The Deputy Commissioner, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the Assistant Commissioner could not have passed the order directing registration of the names of Jaibunnisa and
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
her children in light of the fact that the khatha was already standing in the name of several persons and he accordingly, allowed the revision and set aside the
order of the Assistant Commissioner and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
10. This order was incidentally passed on 21.01.2025. It may be pertinent to state here that in the revision, the purchasers from Jaibunnisa in fact made an application seeking to implead themselves, but no
order appears to have been passed on said application. The fact, however, remains that the purchasers who are the writ petitioners in WP.No.847/2025 were aware of the fact that revision had been filed in which the mutation in favour of Jaibunnisa was under challenge.
11. Interestingly, the filing of an impleading application was not informed to this Court in their writ petition and this Court, being unaware of impleading application filed by the purchasers in the revision and
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
also during the pendency of the revision, proceeded to issue a direction to the authorities to mutate the name of the purchasers from Jaibunnisa on the basis of the registered Sale Deed.
12. Being aggrieved by this order passed by this Court in W.P.No.847/2025, the persons who had filed a revision have filed WP.No.3352/2025 seeking review/recalling of said order.
13. The purchasers and also Jaibunnisa have also preferred writ petitions challenging the order of remand passed by the Deputy Commissioner and since all the matters are interconnected, all the petitions were ordered to be clubbed together.
14. Jaibunnisa, who had secured the order at the hands of the Assistant Commissioner to mutate her name, has challenged the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in WP.Nos.3012/2025, 1388/2025, 2932/2025 and 2933/2025.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
15. The purchasers, who had filed WP.No.847/2025 though sought to implead themselves before the Deputy Commissioner, have, however, not filed the writ petition challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
16.
Learned counsel for the petitioners appearing for Jaibunnisa contends that since there was a registered Sale Deed, the authorities were bound to mutate the name of the purchasers from Jaibunnisa and this Court had merely given effect to that while disposing WP.No.847/2025.
17. It is also sought to contend that Jaibunnisa had an inherent right to get the khatha registered in her name since her husband was the beneficiary of the
order of the Land Tribunal. It is therefore contended that the
order of the Deputy Commissioner interfering with the
order of the Assistant Commissioner which was only giving effect to the
order of the Land Tribunal was incorrect.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
18.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP.No.3352/2025 i.e., the revision petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner, however, sought to contend that the entire exercise of Jaibunnisa and the purchasers from her was nothing but a fraud being played to this Court. It is contended that since the Tahsildar had issued an endorsement in which it was clearly informed that the request of Jaibunnisa could not be considered since there were several transactions and several mutation orders made, she could not have proceeded to file a suit and secure an exparte decree without making all the khatedars as parties.
19. It is also contended that the entire exercise of filing a suit was only to get the khatha registered on the basis of the decree obtained in the suit and thereafter alienated the property in question and on the strength of alienation, deleted the names of the petitioners/khatedars and got the names of the
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
purchasers from Jaibunnisa in the revenue record. It is therefore contended that the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be found fault with and at the same time, the order passed by this Court in WP.847/2025 would have to be recalled.
20. In the normal course, an order of remand would not be interfered with. However, having regard to the manner in which the entire proceedings had been conducted by Jaibunnisa and the purchasers from her, it becomes the imperative duty of this Court to interfere with it and set right the illegality.
21. As already noticed above, Jaibunnisa made a claim to get her name mutated in the revenue record on the basis of the order of the Land Tribunal passed in favour of her husband in the year 2002, only 20 years thereafter. This attempt was repelled by the Tahsildar with a clear endorsement that there were several khatedars and Sy.No.87 had been phoded into 22 sub-numbers as Sy.Nos.87/1 to 87/22 and in
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
order to entertain her claim, several orders of mutation had to be set aside. 22. Jaibunnisa was therefore conscious of the fact that there were several khatedars and in order to get her name entered, the existing khatedars' name had to be deleted in the manner known to law. However, she chose to prefer an appeal in which she arrayed 20 persons as respondents. However, the addresses in respect of these respondents were merely stated as "Hoskote Town and Hoskote Taluk". The Assistant Commissioner has observed in his order that the notices were served and yet there was no appearance on their behalf. 23. It cannot be in dispute that Hoskote town is not exactly a small town where the respondents can be identified by their names. In order to effect service, at least a door number, or the name of the street and an area, has to be indicated. The fact that with just an addresses mentioned in the cause title i.e.,
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
"Hoskote Town and Hoskote Taluk", notices were said to have been served, cannot be accepted at all. 24. The Assistant Commissioner has proceeded to direct the entries to be made not on the basis of the order of the Land Tribunal which was the original claim of Jaibunnisa, but on the basis of the decree obtained by Jaibunnisa in O.S.No.33/2023. 25. As already noticed above, the suit in O.S.No.33/2023 was filed after an appeal was filed before the Assistant Commissioner. In essence, Jaibunnisa gave up the claim that her name should be entered on the basis of the order passed by the Land Tribunal in favour of her husband, but she wanted her name to be entered on the basis of the decree passed in O.S.No.33/2023. 26.
It may be pertinent to state here that O.S.No.33/2023 had been initiated only against one defendant i.e., Syed Abrar Shah and in the suit, it was contended that Syed Abrar Shah tried to
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
interfere with her possession and Jaibunnisa has contended that Syed Abrar Shah had created a General Power of Attorney said to have been executed by Mohammed Shah and on the basis of said GPA, Syed Abrar Shah was making efforts to alienate the suit property. It is therefore clear that Jaibunnisa did not lay a claim of declaration against khatedars whose names were entered in the revenue record in respect of land in question, but she filed a suit for declaration against one Syed Abrar Shah who was admittedly not the khatedar and even according to Jaibunnisa was only claiming under a GPA. 27. It is on the basis of the decree passed in this suit in which Syed Abrar Shah was said to have appeared in person, the Assistant Commissioner proceeded to register the khatha in favour of Jaibunnisa. 28. The order passed in O.S.No.33/2023 was on 27.07.2024 and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was on 21.11.2024 and thereafter, a
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
Sale Deed was executed by Jaibunnisa on
18.12.2024.
Given the fact that the claim of Jaibunnisa got transformed from that being a legal heir of a person who had obtained an order from the Land Tribunal to that of recipient of a decree in O.S.No.23/2023, based on which, she got the order of the Assistant Commissioner to get her name/purchasers' name mutated in the revenue record, it is quote apparent that this entire exercise of Jaibunnisa was solely to abuse the process of Court, both the Civil as well as the Revenue, in order to enter her name and that of her purchasers in the revenue record. 29. The Deputy Commissioner, by the impugned order, has merely come to the conclusion that the order of the Assistant Commissioner could not have been sustained since there existed, several khatedars and none of them had been served in the matter. - 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
30. In my view, since an unfair process was adopted by Jaibunnisa and her purchasers, it would be appropriate to modify the order of the Deputy Commissioner. 31. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner and the Tahsildar is directed to restore forthwith the revenue entries as it stood before the claim of Jaibunnisa was made. 32. It would however be open for Jaibunnisa is to institute an appropriate suit seeking for declaration of her title and if she were to secure such a declaration, it is needless to state that the revenue entries would abide by the result of said suit. 33. It would also be open for the purchasers from Jaibunnisa to file a suit independently putting forth the claim of Jaibunnisa. 34. The order of the Deputy Commissioner is accordingly modified. - 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16942 WP No. 3012 of 2025 C/W WP No. 847 of 2025 WP No. 1388 of 2025 AND 3 OTHERS
35.
In view of the fact that this Court was forced to pass the order without bringing all the facts before it, it would appropriate to also recall the order passed in WP.No.847/2025, moreso, when it was passed without hearing the persons who would be affected by the said order. 36. Accordingly, the order passed in WP.No.847/2025 is recalled and said petition is restored to file. By virtue of the reasons given above, it is held that the prayers in WP.No.847/2025 cannot be sustained and WP.No.847/2025 is therefore dismissed. 37. In the result, WP.No.3352/2025 filed by the khatedars is disposed of as stated in paragraphs 29 and 30 and WP.Nos.3012/2025, 1388/2025, 2932/2025 and 2933/2025 filed by Jaibunnisa and her children are dismissed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE
PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43