- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5934 WP No. 31036 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.31036 OF 2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. 1(A) SMT.KEMPAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS. SRI.MUNIVENKATAPPA S/O KEMPAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 2. SMT.DODDACHINNAMMA D/O LATE NANJAPPA W/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS 3. 4. SMT.GULLA CHINNAMMA D/O LATE NANJAPPA W/O MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT YAMARE VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT SRI.NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5934 WP No. 31036 of 2019 5. 6. SMT.VEENA W/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS SRI.SATHISH S/O LATE LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.3 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT CHAMBENAHALLI VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 106 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.M.SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR P.6 AND LRS OF DECEASED P.1; SRI.VINOD C S, ADVOCATE FOR P.1(A), P4, P5, P6) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT BY ITS SECRETARY M.S.BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN K.G.ROAD BENGALURU - 560009 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVANA K.G.ROAD BENGALURU - 560009 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5934 WP No. 31036 of 2019 4. THE THASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562106 5. SRI.MUNIYELAGHAIAH S/O LATE ALLALAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 6. SRI.YELLAPPA S/O LATE ALLALAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT CHAMBANAHALLI VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 125 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MANJUNATHA K, HCGP FOR R.1 TO R.5; SRI.M.J.ALVA, ADVOCATE FOR R.6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12TH MARCH 2019, PASSED BY THE R-2, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN REVISION PETITION NO.166/2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER In the captioned writ petition, the petitioners herein, who are claiming to be the Class-I heirs of one - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5934 WP No. 31036 of 2019 Nanjappa, are aggrieved by the change of katha effected by the Revenue Authorities based on an alleged Will executed by the said Nanjappa in favour of the father of respondent Nos.5 and 6 namely Allalappa. 2. An appeal is filed by the petitioners herein before respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner referring to the properties covered under the Will has come to the conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled to get their names mutated as the petition lands are not reflected in the said Will. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and direction was issued by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner to mutate the petitioners' names. This order is reversed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner, which is now challenged by the legal heirs of the Testator. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5934 WP No. 31036 of 2019 3. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6. Perused the records. 4. In the present case, the Legatee, based on the Will, had his name mutated as early as 1993-94, as evidenced by the mutation entry in Annexure-C. Although the Full Bench judgment in C.N. NAGENDRA SINGH VS. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT & OTHERS1 establishes that Revenue Authorities should not act upon Wills while exercising their powers under Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, this principle is not applicable in the present case. The records clearly indicate that the father of respondent Nos.5 and 6, who claimed to be the Legatee, had already secured mutation based on the Will in 1993- 94, and these entries have since remained in the RTC records. 1 ILR 2002 KAR 2750 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5934 WP No. 31036 of 2019 5. Furthermore, it is evident from the records that respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed a comprehensive suit in O.S.No.860/2018, seeking a declaration of their rights based on the Will. The petitioners express concerns that the legal heirs of the original Legatee may interfere with the property. Given that the legal heirs have already instituted a suit asserting their title, this Court finds that at this stage, the mutation of the Legatee’s name cannot be set aside under Sections 136(2) and 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The Deputy Commissioner (respondent No.2) erred in ordering restoration, particularly when the legal heirs' claim is already under judicial scrutiny. However, this Court acknowledges the petitioners' concerns and, to ensure transparency, directs the jurisdictional Tahsildar (respondent No.4) to record the pendency of O.S.No.860/2018 in the land records. 6. The existing RTC entries for the properties in question shall remain subject to the outcome of the pending suit. The petitioners retain the right to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5934 WP No. 31036 of 2019 demonstrate before the Civil Court that the disputed lands are not covered under the Will. To safeguard the interests of all parties and prevent the creation of third-party rights, this Court while refraining from interfering with the Deputy Commissioner's order deems it necessary to issue directions ensuring that both parties' rights are preserved until the suit is adjudicated on its merits. With these above observations, the writ petition stands disposed off. However, respondent No.4 is hereby directed to forthwith reflect pendency of the suit in O.S.No.860/2018 in the other rights column. This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of five weeks from the date of receipt of order copy. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2