- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10341 WP No. 7794 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 7794 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI K C BASAVARAJU S/O LATE CHIKKAKEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 2. SRI K C SHIVAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAKEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT KALKERE VILLAGE, K R PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU 560043 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GOVINDARAJU D J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD, BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, VIKASASOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU 560009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU 560009. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10341 WP No. 7794 of 2023 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK, K R PURAM, BENGALURU 560036. 5. SRI M AKKAPPA S/O LATE DODDAMADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 6. SMT MUNI ANJINAMMA W/O LATE M AKKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 7. SMT GOWRAMMA H W/O LATE K P MUDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 8. SMT ANURADHA M D/O LATE K P MUDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 9. SRI K JAGADEESH S/O K P KALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 10. SRI K RAMESH S/O K P KALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 11. SRI K P KALAPPA S/O LATE PILLA ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, 12. SRI PATALAPPA S/O LATE SANJEEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, 13. SRI K SHETU, S/O KOLANDAI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 14. SRI K RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE KAVERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10341 WP No. 7794 of 2023 15. SRI K C SHIVASHANKARAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAKEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 16. SRI K C MANJUNATHA S/O LATE CHIKKAKEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R-5 TO R-16 ARE R/AT KALKERE VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 043. 17. SMT NALINIYAMMA @ NALINI W/O MUNIRAJU K, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO 838, SREE NILAYA, 4TH B CROSS, 9TH MAIN ROAD, I STAGE, HRBR LAYOUT, KALYANANAGARA, BENGALURU 560043 18. SMT. K.P.PARVATHAMMA., W/O SRI.T.GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT D.No.94, KALKERE VILLAGE, HORAMAVU POST, K.R.PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560043. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI. B.S.RAGHU PRASAD., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-5 AND R-6; SRI. SAMPATH BAPAT., ADVOCATE FOR R-7 & R-8; SRI. T. SRINIVASAN., ADVOCATE FOR R-13; SRI. V.CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-15 & R-16; SRI. K.SHIVASHANKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-18; R-9, 10, 11, 12 AND 14 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 12.02.2025, NOTICE TO R-17 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10341 WP No. 7794 of 2023 RECORDS QUASH THE ANNEXURE-Z THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN RP NO.115/2022 DATED.17.03.2023 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU, 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. The Tahsildar passed an order of mutation on the basis of the registered Partition Deed dated 05.12.2005. The order of mutation records the reason for mutation in the following terms: " ªÀÄÄåmÉñÀ£ï DzÉñÀzÀ «ªÀgÀ: PÉ. Dgï. ºÉÆÃ. PÀ¯ÉÌgÉ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹UÀ¼ÁzÀ aPÀÌ PÉA¥ÀAiÀÄå ©£ï ¸ÀAfêÀ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉAqÀw ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÄ ¥ÀmÁ®¥Àà ©£ï ¸ÀAfêÀ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉAqÀw ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ vÁ. 5-12-05, gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ «¨sÁUÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀAvÉ SÁvÉ zÁR¯ï j.£ÀA. 10027/05-06 vÁ. 5-12-05 gÀAvÉ zÁR¯ï 1) ¥ÀmÁ®¥Àà gÀªÀjUÉ ¸À.£ÀA. 35/¦ gÀ°è 0.06.08 UÀÄ, ºÀUÀÄ 407 gÀ°è 0.20 UÀÄ. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10341 WP No. 7794 of 2023 2) PÉ.¹.ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ gÀªÀjUÉ ¸À.£ÀA.81/¦ 1gÀ°è 0.04UÀÄ, 85/¦ 1 gÀ®gÀ° 0.14.08UÀÄ, 160/¦1 gÀ°è 0.03 UÀÄ, 241/¦ 1 gÀ°è 0.03.08 UÀÄ, 242/4gÀ°è 0.03 UÀÄ, 243/¦ 1 gÀ°è 0.05.UÀÄ, 264/¦ 1 (397)gÀ°è 0.17 UÀÄ, 275/1 gÀ°è 0.10 UÀÄ, 408/¦ 2 gÀ°è 020.UÀÄ. 3) PÉ. ¹. ²ªÀ¥Àà gÀªÀjUÉ ¸À.£ÀA. 81¦1 gÀ°è 0.03.04UÀÄ, 100 gÀ°è 0.18.08UÀÄ, 160/¦ 1 gÀ°è 0.02UÀÄ, 180/¦ 4 gÀ°è 0.08.08UÀÄ, 263/¦ 1 gÀ°è 0.17UÀÄ, 375/1gÀ°è, 0.10UÀÄ, 408 gÀ°è 0.21UÀÄ. 4) PÉ.¹. ²ªÀ±ÀAPÀgÀ¥Àà gÀªÀjUÉ ¸À.£ÀA. 83 gÀ°è 0.05UÀÄ, 160/¦ 1 gÀ°è 0.02.04UÀÄ, 161/¦ 1 gÀ°è 0.09.04UÀÄ, 178/¦ 4 gÀ°è 0.09.08UÀÄ, 264/¦ 1 (397)gÀ°è 0.17UÀÄ, 375/1 gÀ°è 0.10UÀÄ, 407 gÀ°è 0.15UÀÄ, 408/¦ 2 gÀ°è 0.05UÀÄ. 5) PÉ.¹.§¸ÀgÀªÀgÁdÄ gÀªÀjUÉ ¸À.£ÀA. 83gÀ°è 0.03.04UÀÄ, 160/¦ 1 gÀ°è 0.02 UÀÄ, 179/¦ 4 gÀ°è 0.10.08 UÀÄ, 248/(378)gÀ°è 0.16 UÀÄ, 263/¦ 1 gÀ°è 0.08.04UÀÄ, 264/¦ 1(397)0.09UÀÄ, 375/1 gÀ°è 0.10 UÀÄ, 408 gÀ°è 0.20 UÀÄ. 6) ºÉÆ£ÀߪÀÄä jæUÉ ¸À.£ÀA251/(381)gÀ°è 0.1.09UÀÄ 7) gÁdªÀÄä gÀªÀjUÉ ¸À.£ÀA.267 gÀ°è 0.03.08 UÀÄ. 8) PÀ«vÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨sÁUÀå gÀªÀjUÉ dAnAiÀiÁV ¸À.£ÀA. 269/¦ 3 (409) gÀ°è 0.03 UÀÄ. «. J. µÀgÁ ---- vÁ®ÆPÀÄ PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ ¸ÁzÀgÁzÀ ªÀ. ¸Àw/05-06 gÀAvÉ RTC vÁ¼É EzÉ. UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10341 WP No. 7794 of 2023 £ÀªÀÄÆ£É 21 £ÀÄß ¥ÀæZÀÄgÀ¥Àr¹ ¤UÀ¢vÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ §A¢®è . ªÀÄÄåmÉõÀ£ï ªÀÄAdÆgÁUÀ®Ä CjPÉ ¸À»/UÁæ.¯É. ºÉÆgÀªÀiÁªÀÅ ªÀÈvÀÛ DzÉñÀ --- C¼ÀvÉUÉ M¼À¥Àr¹ CAVÃPÀj¹zÉÀ ¸À»/ gÁ.¤. ºÉÆgÀªÀiÁªÀÅ ªÀÈvÀÛ " 2. Notwithstanding the fact that the mutation was made on the basis of the registered Partition Deed, the petitioners who are also the parties to the Partition Deed preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for brevity, referred to as "the Act") being aggrieved by the order of mutation. The Assistant Commissioner proceeded to allow the appeal essentially on the ground that respondents 2 and 3 therein i.e., Gowramma and Anuradha respectively had stated that they had no objection to correct the extent by showing it as 1 acre 10-3/4 guntas and deleting the extent 12-3/4 guntas each in Sy.Nos.264 and 263. Thus, in effect, the Assistant - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10341 WP No. 7794 of 2023 Commissioner virtually directed the revenue entries to be mutated as requested by appellants and respondents 2 and 3 therein i.e., Gowramma and Anuradha. 3. Being aggrieved by this order of the Assistant Commissioner, a revision petition was filed by Akkappa and Munianjinamma. It was contended by them that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was incorrect and the revenue entries could not be based on the convenience of the appellants and respondents 2 and 3 before the Assistant Commissioner. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, by the impugned order, has narrated the persons in whose name entries are to be made in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.263 and 264 and ultimately allows the revision by setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner was silent as to whether he was upholding the order of the Tahsildar or was - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10341 WP No. 7794 of 2023 issuing any direction to the Tahsildar in respect of making an entry in the RTC. 5. Be that as it may, the argument now being advanced is that there are some discrepancies in survey numbers and therefore, that has to be corrected. It is to be stated here that the Tahsidlar while exercising powers under Sections 128 and 129 of the Act can only act in accordance with the documents of title which are produced before him and effect changes in the revenue entries accordingly. The Tahsildar or any revenue authorities cannot interpret the document of title or make an entry contrary to the registered instrument as this would basically amount to amending the very registered instrument itself. In that view of the matter, while holding that the order of the Tahsildar effecting mutation in accordance with the registered Partition Deed cannot be found fault with, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is to be construed as one merely confirming the order - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10341 WP No. 7794 of 2023 of the Tahsidlar and any observations made therein would have no consequence as regards merits of the claim. 6. It is made clear that if the parties are aggrieved by the entries made based on the registered Partition Deed, they are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings to get those documents corrected and thereafter, seek for mutation of entries accordingly. 7. Subject to above, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 92