- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16640 WP No. 11090 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 11090 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SRINIVASAIAH .P H/O LATE SMT. SHYLA SRINIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS 2. ADARSH .S S/O SRINIVASAIAH & LATE SMT. SHYLA SRINIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 3. SUPREETH .S S/O SRINIVASAIAH & LATE SMT. SHYLA SRINIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 334 1ST D CROSS, 6TH BLOCK 2ND PHASE, BSK 3RD STAGE BANGALORE – 560 085. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE-570 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSORE DIVISION MYSORE DISTRICT-570 005. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16640 WP No. 11090 of 2025 3. THE THASILDAR MYSORE DIVISION MYSORE DISTRICT-570 001. 4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. MANJUNATH, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE ALL THE PROCEEDINGS IN ANNEXURE D, E AND F, DIRECTION TO SETTING ASIDE/QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14-08-2024 AS PER ANNEXURE F, PASSEC BY THE R-1 IN R.P. 93/2020 AND 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 predecessor-in-title of the petitioners i.e., Shylakumari purchased the lands measuring 34 acres 11 guntas and 5 acres in Sy.No.161/P1 situate in Sarkari Uttanahalli, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, vide Sale Deed dated 03.12.2004 and pursuant to the same, the Revenue Authorities mutated the name of Shylakumari in the revenue record vide MR.37/2004- - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16640 WP No. 11090 of 2025 05 and MR.38/2004-05. From the year 2004-05, it is not in dispute that the name of Shylakumari continued in the records. 2. It is stated that Shylakumari passed away on 15.10.2007 and as a consequence, her husband and two sons made an application to mutate their names in the revenue records on the ground that they had inherited the properties. The Tahsildar, however, proceeded to reject this application on the ground that the land purchased by Shylakumari was originally belonged to Mysuru Maharaja and therefore, he required the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner. This order of the Tahsildar was carried in appeal to the Assistant Commissioner, but the Assistant Commissioner also dismissed the appeal. Consequently, a revision was preferred and the revision was also dismissed. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16640 WP No. 11090 of 2025 3. When it is not in dispute that the name of predecessor-in-title of the petitioners had been entered in the revenue record on the basis of a registered Sale Deed dated 03.12.2004, it is obvious that on her death, there is an obligation on the part of the Revenue Authorities to mutate the name of her legal heirs in the revenue records. In a proceeding initiated by the legal heirs of Shylakumari to mutate their names in the revenue record on the basis that they had inherited the properties in question, in my view, the Revenue Authorities had no right to question the entitlement of Shylakumari on the lands in question. If Shylakumari was not entitled to lands in question, obviously the Revenue Authorities ought to have raised objections when she made the purchase and requested for mutating her name in the revenue record. Having not done that, they cannot contend that the names of her legal heirs should not be entered. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16640 WP No. 11090 of 2025 4. The Revenue Authorities having accepted that Shylakumari purchased the lands in question and having mutated her name in the revenue records, they would be fundamentally estopped from questioning the entitlement of Shylakumari over the lands in question. Consequently, on her death also, her legal heirs would be entitled to get their names mutated in the revenue records and the Revenue Authorities cannot object to mutate their names. Consequently, the impugned orders are quashed. The Tahsildar is directed to mutate the name of the petitioners who are the legal heirs of Shylakumari in the revenue record within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57