- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13561 WP No. 4562 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 4562 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI K H ASHWATHAIAH S/O. LATE HANUMANTHA BHOVI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O. KANCHIGANAHALLI, BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT 572 125. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESH K R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU 572 101. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION, MADHUGIRI, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572 132. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, SIRA TALUK, SIRA, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572137 4. SRI. PUTTAGIRIYAPPA, S/O. LATE SRINIVASAPPA, AGED MAJOR. 5. SRI. PUTTATHIMMAPPA, S/O. LATE SRINIVASAPPA, AGED MAJOR. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13561 WP No. 4562 of 2025 R-4 & R-5 ARE R/O. KANCHIGANAHALLI, BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT 572 125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.MANJUNATH., HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.06.2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN CASE NO.RP- 14/2008-09 AT ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CASE NO.RRT(A) 12.2007-08 AT ANNEXURE-G, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. Hanumantha Bhovi, the father of the petitioner had instituted a suit for declaration that he was the owner of the suit property, which was land bearing Sy.No.15 measuring 1 acre. This suit was decreed, but in appeal the decree was reversed and the suit was dismissed. 2. A second appeal was preferred by Hanumantha Bhovi before this Court in R.S.A. No.3362/2006 and this Court by judgment dated 07.04.2021 confirmed the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13561 WP No. 4562 of 2025 judgment of the Appellate Court after recording a clear finding that Hanumantha Bhovi had not purchased the entire 4 acres 5 guntas in Sy.No.15 and 1 acre of land out of the said extent of 4 acres 5 guntas was retained by his vendor Thimmakka. 3. Based on this particular judgment, the Revenue Authorities mutated the entries and made out the katha in respect of 1 acre in respect of the legal representatives of Thimmakka, i.e., Putta Giriyappa vide M.R. No.2/2006-07. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred to the Assistant Commissioner by the petitioner, but the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal. Revision was also preferred to the Deputy Commissioner, which also ended in dismissal. As a consequence, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. In my view, the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities mutating the name of Putta Giriyappa in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13561 WP No. 4562 of 2025 respect of 1 acre cannot be found fault with, since the Civil Courts have recorded a clear finding that Hanumantha Bhovi had not purchased entire 4 acres 5 guntas in Sy.No.15 and out of the entire extent of 4 acres 5 guntas, 1 acre of land had been retained by Thimmakka. 6. If the finding of the Civil Court is that Thimmakka had retained 1 acre, it is obvious that her legal representatives would be entitled to have their name entered in the revenue records and the petitioner having suffered a decree in the Civil Court cannot claim the entries to be made in respect of the entire extent of land. 7. The Authorities were, therefore, justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. There is no good ground made out to entertain this Writ Petition. This Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13561 WP No. 4562 of 2025 8. 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.: 21