- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1552 WP No. 10400 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 10400 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. D. V. DILIP KUMAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O H. VASANTHA KUMAR R/AT DODDARASINAKERE VILLAGE C.A KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVARAJU .M.K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571 428. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANDYA SUB DIVISION MANDYA-571 428. 4. THE TAHSILDAR MADDURU TALUK MADDURU-571 428. 5. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR C. A. KERE HOBLI Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1552 WP No. 10400 of 2022 CRICLE-1 MADDURU TALUK-571 428. 6. SMT. VANAJAKSHI MAJOR W/O H. VASANTHA KUMAR R/AT DODDARASINAKERE VILLAGE C.A. KERE HOBLI PRESENTLY R/AT VANAJAKSHI BIN LATE MARISIDDEGOWDA T M HOSURU VILLAGE, K SHETTY HALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK-571 438. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH .K, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. P. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.02.2022 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA IN REV. PET NO. 89/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.03.2014 IN R. MISC NO. 158/2011-12 BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT/THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANDYA SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA VIDE ANNEXURE-B BY UPHOLD AND CONFIRMING THE REVENUE RECORDS IN M.R. NO. 36/2003-04 IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER PERTAINING TO THE LAND BEARING SY NO. 640/1P1 MEASURING 21.08 GUNTAS SITUATED AT MUTTANAHALLI VILLAGE, C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1552 WP No. 10400 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Captioned petition is filed by the step-son assailing the order of respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner who has directed to mutate the name of respondent No.6 based on the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.513/1995, which is confirmed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP appearing for respondents 1 to 5 and the learned counsel appearing for private respondent No.6. 3. Respondent No.6, the wife of Vasanth Kumar, who is the father of the petitioner herein, preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, challenging the mutation of the petitioner’s name with respect to 10 guntas of land out of the total extent measuring 21.08 guntas. Respondent No.3, the Assistant Commissioner, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1552 WP No. 10400 of 2022 after taking into consideration the compromise decree entered into between the petitioner’s father and Respondent No.6, wherein the father agreed to transfer 10 guntas of land to Respondent No.6, directed the jurisdictional Tahsildar to mutate the name of Respondent No.6 in the revenue records in accordance with the terms of the compromise decree. Subsequently, this order was upheld by Respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner, confirming the directions issued by the Assistant Commissioner. 4. The petitioner has contended that Respondent No.6 relinquished her right over the 10 guntas of land by accepting a cash payment of Rs.50,000/-. However, this contention cannot be adjudicated in mutation proceedings, which are limited to implementing rights already established through judicial or quasi-judicial orders. Similarly, the petitioner’s assertion that Respondent No.6 is not in possession of the 10 guntas of land, as granted to her under the compromise decree, also falls outside the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1552 WP No. 10400 of 2022 purview of mutation proceedings, which are not intended to examine possession or title disputes. 5. The learned counsel for Respondent No.6 produced a true copy of the compromise decree along with a supporting memo. Upon reviewing the compromise decree, it is evident that the decree passed in O.S. No.513/1995 explicitly creates a legal right in favor of Respondent No.6. This decree records an agreement whereby Respondent No.6 is allotted 10 guntas of land by her husband, Vasanth Kumar. Based on this compromise decree, Respondent No.6 is entitled to have her name entered into the revenue records, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The actions of the revenue authorities, including the direction issued by Respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner and the subsequent confirmation by Respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner, are in compliance with the requirements of the law to give effect to the rights established by the compromise decree. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1552 WP No. 10400 of 2022 6. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner, being the stepson, lacks an independent legal right or locus standi to challenge the mutation order. The compromise decree passed in O.S. No.513/1995 was neither challenged by the petitioner’s father, Vasanth Kumar, who was a party to the decree, nor was there any appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner directing the mutation of Respondent No.6’s name in accordance with the decree. The petitioner’s objections, therefore, are unsustainable as they lack legal foundation and do not affect the validity of the mutation order based on the compromise decree. Accordingly, the actions of the revenue authorities remain lawful and binding. 7. Writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46