- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11164 WP No. 5361 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 5361 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. SUBBANNA, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/A JYOTHIPURA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU 560 049. SENIOR CITIZEN BENIFIT NOT CLAIMED. PETITIONER (BY SRI. V LAKSHMINARAYANA., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.VIKRAM BALAJI) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 009. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH SUB - DIVISION, BENGALURU 560 049. 3. THE TAHASILDHAR, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036. 4. SMT. MUNIYAMMA, W/O LATE M. ASHWATHANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/A JYOTHIPURA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU 560 049. Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11164 WP No. 5361 of 2025 5. SRI. A. MOHAN, S/O LATE M. ASHWATHANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/A JYOTHIPURA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU 560 049. 6. SMT. A. RENUKA, D/O LATE M. ASHWATHANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A JYOTHIPURA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU 560 049. 7. SMT. A. RAMESHA, S/O LATE M. ASHWATHANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A JYOTHIPURA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU 560 049. 8. SMT. A. RATHNA, D/O LATE M. ASHWATHANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A JYOTHIPURA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU 560 049. 9. SRI. A. MANJUNATH, S/O LATE M. ASHWATHANARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A JYOTHIPURA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU 560 049. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V SHIVA REDDY., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11164 WP No. 5361 of 2025 SRI. YOGESH V KOTEMATH., AGA FOR C/R9) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 07.01.2025 BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT R-1 HEREIN IN REVISION PETITION NO. 99/2022 AT ANNX-A AND 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. In the year 2014-15 an appeal was filed under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 challenging the mutation order in IHR.No.72/1959-60, MR.No.61/1955-56 and MR.No.8/2004-5 and a direction was sought for to enter the name of the appellant Sri.Subbanna, in Suvery No.68/2 of Jyothipura Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. 2. In this appeal, Sri. M Ashwathnarayana Reddy in whose name the katha has been registered, pursuant to the aforementioned three mutation extracts, were arrayed as respondent No.2 and it has been stated in the appeal memo that Sri. M Ashwathnarayana Reddy / respondent No.2 has filed a memo stating that they did not have any objections for the appeal being allowed and on the basis of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11164 WP No. 5361 of 2025 the said appeal the aforementioned three mutations orders were set aside. 3. Being aggrieved by this the legal representatives of Sri. M Ashwathnarayana Reddy, preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner has allowed the revision after coming to the conclusion that a mutation order made in the year 1959-60 was sought to be challenged merely 60 years after they were made and the Assistant Commissioner ought not to have entertained the appeal at all. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner the present petitioner is before this Court. 5. As noticed above, the essential challenge before the Assistant Commissioner was to a mutation order made in the year 1959-60 and it is therefore, obvious that a mutation which has been stood more than 60 years was sought to be challenged by way of an appeal. 6. Learned Senior counsel however, contends that there was a basic mistake in as much as the contents of the sale deed were misread and the entries were wrongly - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11164 WP No. 5361 of 2025 mentioned and therefore, the Assistant Commissioner was justified in allowing the appeal more so when the respondent therein had filed a memo to that effect. 7. In my view this argument cannot be accepted, in the light of the reasoning given by the Deputy Commissioner that a mutation register extract which had stood for more than 60 years, was sought to be annulled, on the basis that there was a misreading of the sale deed. If, rightly or wrongly revenue entry has stood for more than six decades, there was no justification for the Assistant Commissioner to reverse the same, even if it is on the basis of a memo filed by respondent No.2 herein. 8. In my view, having regard to the long passage of time since the mutation under which both the petitioner as well as Sri. M Ashwathnarayana Reddy claim title over the property and taking into consideration that they accepted the katha which has stood undisturbed as per aforementioned three mutation orders for merely 60 years, the Deputy Commissioner was justified in reversing the orders of the Assistant Commissioner. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11164 WP No. 5361 of 2025 9. I find no reason to entertain the writ petition and therefore, the petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court to secure a decree regarding his entitlement under the sale deed and if the petitioner obtains a declaratory decree it is needless to state that the revenue entries would abide by the result such a decree. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24