- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14565 WP No. 6104 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 6104 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. KRISHNAMMA W/O. RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKATHIRUPATHI VILLAGE, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. (AADHAR NO.6468 1078 0190) PIN CODE 563 106. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.N.MAHABALESHWARA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR TOWN. PIN CODE: 517 247. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB DIVISION, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR. PIN CODE: 517 247. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, MALUR TALUK, MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT, PIN CODE: 563 130. 4. SRI. NANJAPPA, S/O BALAPPA, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14565 WP No. 6104 of 2025 AGED MAJOR. R/AT CHIKKATHIRUPATHI VILLAGE, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. PIN CODE 563 106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. MANJUNATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. GOUTAMADITYA S., ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2024 IN R.A NO. 264/21024 ON THE FILED OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR (ANNEXURE-U) CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2024 IN R.A NO.99/2024 (ANNEXURE-R) PASSED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR AND CONSEQUENTIALLY RESTORE M.R NO. 25/2014-15 DATED 27.11.2014 (ANNEXURE-J) IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE LAND IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 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. The facts are not in dispute. 2. Vide M.R. No.40/2009-10, the revenue records have been mutated and in place of Muneppa Dombra, the name of Giddamma was entered in the Sy.No.259 measuring 1 acre 29 guntas. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14565 WP No. 6104 of 2025 3. This order of mutation in M.R. No.40/2009-10 was challenged by Abbaiah i.e., the son of the petitioner herein by preferring an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (ACT) in R.A. No.142/2010- 11. 4. The Assistant Commissioner accepted this appeal of Abbaiah and set aside the order of mutation made in favour of Giddamma by his order dated 28.02.2014. 5. The Assistant Commissioner also proceeded to direct that the name of Abbaiah's mother, Krishnamma i.e., petitioner herein be entered in the RTC after issuing notice to all the persons concerned. 6. Being aggrieved by this order of the Assistant Commissioner, a Revision was filed under Section 136(3) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner. In this Revision, Giddamma was represented by her legal representatives, as she had passed away during - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14565 WP No. 6104 of 2025 the pendency of the Revision or because the legal representatives had themselves filed a Revision. This Revision Petition was, however, dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 17.12.2018. Thus, as a consequence of the dismissal of this Revision, the entitlement of the petitioner's name i.e., Krishnamma's name being entered in the revenue records became final. 7. It may also be pertinent to state here that this order of the Deputy Commissioner was not challenged by the legal representatives of Giddamma and has been accepted by them. As ordered by the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No.142/2010-11, the name of Krishnamma was mutated in the revenue records vide M.R. No.H25/2014-15. 8. Being aggrieved by this order of mutation made in favour of Krishnamma, which was pursuant to the order of the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No.142/2010-11, the Thasildar addressed a letter to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14565 WP No. 6104 of 2025 the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner treated the said letter as an appeal and proceeded to consider that proceeding as an appeal filed by the legal representatives of Giddamma and he proceeded to pass an order on 26.09.2024 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of mutation made in favour of Krishnamma. 9. He also directed that the name of the legal representatives of Giddamma be entered in the revenue records. Thus, though the right of Giddamma's name being entered in the revenue records came to an end by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, narrated as above, by virtue of this order of the Assistant Commissioner, the legal heirs of Giddamma became entitled to get their names entered in the revenue records. 10. However, despite this order of the Assistant Commissioner, the Thasildar proceeded to effect a mutation in M.R. No.T-40/2024-25, whereby he - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14565 WP No. 6104 of 2025 reinstated the name of Giddamma in the revenue records. Thus, the name of Giddamma which was ordered to be deleted from revenue records by the order of the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No.142/2010-11 and despite confirmation of that, was re-instated at the instance of the letter written by the Thasildar and the Assistant Commissioner treated the said appeal as an appeal under Section 136(2) of the KLR Act. The petitioner being aggrieved by this order of the Assistant Commissioner preferred a Revision. However, the Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the Revision and, as a consequence, the petitioner is before this Court. 11. As already narrated above, the mutation made in favour of Giddamma vide M.R. No.40/2009-10 was set aside by the order of the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No.142/2010-11 on 28.02.2014. It is, thus, clear that the name of Giddamma could not have - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14565 WP No. 6104 of 2025 been continued in the revenue records. The fact that this order of the Assistant Commissioner was also confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in Revision in R.A. No.96/2014-15 also confirms the fact that Giddamma's name could not have been entered in the revenue records. 12. It may be pertinent to state here that in this appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Giddamma was represented through her legal representatives obviously because she was no more. 13. In other words, the legal representatives of Giddamma had suffered an order even at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner, whereby the Deputy Commissioner affirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner holding that the Giddamma's name could not be entered in the revenue records. 14. As already stated above, this order of the Deputy Commissioner has been accepted by the legal - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14565 WP No. 6104 of 2025 representatives of Giddamma and the same has attained finality. 15. When once the name of Giddamma is held to be improperly entered in the revenue records, the Assistant Commissioner could not have entertained a letter from the Thasildar and set aside the entry made in favour of Krishnamma, who had succeeded before the Assistant Commissioner and also the Deputy Commissioner. 16. It is obvious that the entire process adopted by the Assistant Commissioner virtually amounts to reversing his earlier order passed in R.A. No.142/2010-11 is also confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. 17. As a consequence, in my view, the proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No.99/2024 and the order passed by him on 26.09.2024 and its affirmation by the Deputy - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14565 WP No. 6104 of 2025 Commissioner in R.A.P. No.264/2024 are wholly without jurisdiction. Consequently, Annexures-R and U shall stand quashed. 18. The revenue entries shall stand restored in favour of the petitioner forthwith. As a consequence, M.R. No.T-40/2024-25 shall also stand quashed. 19. There is yet another reason why the Writ Petition has to be allowed. 20. It is to be noticed here that the son of Giddamma i.e., Nanjappa was treated as the appellant. If Giddamma's name cannot be entered in the revenue records and this has been accepted by Giddamma and more so by her legal heirs, on the dismissal of the Revision, it is obvious that Nanjappa, the legal heir of Giddamma could not have preferred the appeal under Section 136(2) of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner. It is, therefore, clear that arraigning of Nanjappa as the appellant under - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:14565 WP No. 6104 of 2025 Section 136(2) of the Act was also incorrect. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. 21. 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.: 33