- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13601 WP No. 9111 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. 9111 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT MUNIYAMMA W/O. LATE. CHIKKA PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS JADEGENAHALLI HOBLI, R/AT THAGGALIHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562114 (SENIOR CITIZEN SHIP BENEFITS NOT CLAIMED) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VARADARAJAN M S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS, SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MS BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR-563101. 3. THE TAHSILDAR MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563130 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.SHIVA REDDY., AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 05/03/2025 ISSUED BY THE R2 TO THE PETITIONER IN RA NO. 186/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) AND QUASH THE VERY PROCEEDINGS ITSELF REGISTERED BY THE Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13601 WP No. 9111 of 2025 R2 IN THE SAID R.A. I.E. R.A. NO. 186/2025, BY ALLOWING THIS WP, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the initiation of proceedings under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') at the instance of the Tahasildar. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she had preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No.678 of 2024 and the Assistant Commissioner accepted the plea of the petitioner and passed an order on 24.09.2024 and directed the name of the petitioner to be entered in the revenue records. 3. In the body of this order, the Assistant Commissioner has noticed that the name of the petitioner was mutated vide M.R. No.2 of 1981-82 and her name was also reflected in the RTC from 1981-82 to 2001-02 when the RTCs were written by hand, but subsequently, on computerization her name had been omitted. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13601 WP No. 9111 of 2025 4. Pursuant to this order dated 24.09.2024, the Tahasildar implemented this order by MRT No.01 of 2024-25 on 07.10.2024. 5. Thereafter, it appears that the Assistant Commissioner had issued some oral instructions to the Tahasildar and the Tahasildar in turn has submitted a representation doubting the veracity of the grant and consequently, the Assistant Commissioner has initiated the proceedings under Section 136(2) of the Act. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that once the Assistant Commissioner passed an order allowing the appeal of the petitioner under Section 136(2) of the Act, it would be impermissible for him to entertain an appeal at the request of the Tahasildar against his very own order. 7. A perusal of the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 24.09.2024 indicates that the Assistant Commissioner had indeed recorded a finding that the name of the petitioner was required to be entered in the revenue records as her name had been mutated by M.R. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13601 WP No. 9111 of 2025 No.2/1981-82 and her name was also reflected for more than 20 years till 2001-02. 8. Once the Assistant Commissioner had passed an order under Section 136(2) of the Act, he could not have directed the Tahasildar orally to take certain steps and the Tahasildar could not, on the basis of the said oral instructions, requested the Assistant Commissioner to initiate a proceeding under Section 136(2) of the Act. 9. It is noticed here that a proceeding under Section 136(2) of the Act would be available only against an order passed by the Tahasildar, the Assistant Commissioner would get no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over his own order passed under Section 136(2) of the Act on the basis of which a mutation has been filed. 10. It is therefore clear that the initiation of proceedings under Section 136(2) of the Act is wholly without jurisdiction. The same is accordingly quashed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13601 WP No. 9111 of 2025 11. Liberty is however reserved to the Tahasildar to approach the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act if he is so advised. 12. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 13. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57