- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14305 WP No. 13263 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 13263 OF 2021 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. S B RAJINI W/O SRI. V. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR/LEGATEE, SRI.S. TEJUS S/O SRI. V. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.,15/A, "NANDI SADANA", 4TH MAIN, 10TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, R.K. LAYOUT, PADMANABHANAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 070. (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 11/03/2025) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 001. 2. SRI. MAHESH GURUJAPALLI S/O SRI G.B.S CHARY AGEDABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO. 40 AND 41 YASHASHRI KRUPA, 6TH CROSS BHUVANESHWARANAGARA DASARAHALLI, NH-7,HEBBAL Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14305 WP No. 13263 of 2021 BENGALURU- 560 024. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1, SRI.VIKRAM HULIGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.07.2021 PASSED BY THE R1 ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 25 OF KLR ACT R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC ON 22.06.2020 IN R.P.NO.277/2010-2011 CLUBBED WITH R.P.NO.260/2016-2017 AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE R1 HEREIN VIDE ANNEXURE-A. 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. On an earlier occasion, in a Revision filed under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (KLR ACT), the Deputy Commissioner remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner and, on remand, the Assistant Commissioner passed an order on 14.05.2010 directing the name of the State Government to be entered in the revenue records in Sy.No.31 measuring 4 acres 2 guntas of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14305 WP No. 13263 of 2021 Gadenahalli village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. 2. Being aggrieved by this order, the present petitioner as well as respondent No.2 preferred two Revisions before the Deputy Commissioner. 3. In these Revisions, an application was made for stay of the proceedings. However, this application was rejected by an order dated 26.06.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 4. Being aggrieved by this order, refusing to stay the proceedings, the petitioner herein preferred W.P. No.1882/2019, this Hon'ble Court by an order dated 29.05.2019 allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, who had refused to stay the proceedings. This Court directed that the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner shall remain stayed till O.S. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14305 WP No. 13263 of 2021 No.1134/2006 pending on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bengaluru Rural District, is decided. 5. Being aggrieved by this order, the 2nd respondent preferred an appeal in W.A. No.2480/2019. The Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 25.11.2019 proceeded to pass an order in the following terms - "19. Therefore, we have no manner of doubt that impugned order will have to be set aside. However, it will be for the Revenue Authorities to take a call whether interference should be made in the impugned order before it, in view of the pendency of the civil suit. 20. Hence, we pass the following order: (i) Impugned order dated 29th May 2019 is hereby set aside. The Writ Petition No.1881 of 2019 filed by the sixth respondent is dismissed; (ii) The first respondent shall proceed to decide the pending revision petitions filed by both the appellant and the sixth respondent in accordance with law; - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14305 WP No. 13263 of 2021 (iii) As observed earlier, it is ultimately for the first respondent to decide whether to make interference with the impugned order on merits or to decline to interfere by observing that the impugned order will be subject to final out- come of the civil suit; (iv) Appeal is accordingly partly allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall also point out that after the disposal of the Writ Appeal, an application for clarification was also made in the very same Writ Appeal and the said application was disposed of in the following terms - "ORDER ON I.A. NO.1/2021 This application is filed by the learned counsel for respondent No.6 to clarify the order dated 25.11.2019 in view of ambiguity with respect of Para No.20(ii) & (iii) and also in the light of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of SMT.JAYAMMA AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14305 WP No. 13263 of 2021 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND OTHERS in W.P. No.6872 of 2013 dated 24.01.2020. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for respondent No.6, this Court is of the opinion that there is no cogent reasons are made out to clarify the order passed on 25.11.2019 in this appeal, as the judgment is self explanatory. 3. However, it is made clear that any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is always subject to the result of the suit in O.S. No.1134/2006 pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bangalore Rural District at Bangalore. Accordingly, I.A. No.1/2021 is disposed of." 7. It is, therefore, clear from the above that an earlier refusal by the Deputy Commissioner to stay the proceedings was ultimately affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench also made it clear that the Deputy Commissioner should decide the pending Revision Petitions before him in accordance with law while observing that it was open for the Deputy Commissioner to either interfere with - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14305 WP No. 13263 of 2021 the impugned orders on the merits or to decline to interfere with the said order by observing that the impugned order would be subject to the final outcome of the suit. 8. In fact, by virtue of the clarificatory order dated 05.03.2022, the Division Bench has made it clear that any order that was passed by the Deputy Commissioner in two Revisions would always be subject to the result of the Writ Petition in O.S. No.1134/2006. It is, therefore, clear that the Deputy Commissioner would have to proceed on the merits of the claim or either to await decision of the Civil suit. 9. However, notwithstanding this order, the petitioner has chosen to file a fresh application under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 once again seeking for stay of the proceedings. The Deputy Commissioner, by the impugned order, has - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14305 WP No. 13263 of 2021 rejected the said proceedings and as a consequence the petitioner is before this Court. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.R.B. Sadashivappa contends that since the Full Bench of this Court has laid down the proposition that any decision of the Civil Court would bind the Revenue Authorities, the Deputy Commissioner and not to proceed with the Revision and would have to await the decision of the suit. He also submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajranga1 has also held to the same effect and as a consequence, the order of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained. 11. Sri. Vikram Huligol, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, on the other hand, contends that the pendency of the suit would have no bearing on the Revision, since the Revision was basically challenging the order of the Deputy 1 Bajranga (Dead) by L.Rs. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., AIR 2021 SC 541 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14305 WP No. 13263 of 2021 Commissioner which directed the name of the Government to be entered in the revenue records. He also points out that the litigation in O.S. No.1134/2006 was a suit in which inter se rights of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent would be decided and would not in any way affect the outcome of the validity of the order of the Assistant Commissioner which had directed the name of the Government to be entered in the revenue records. 12. In my view, the order of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be found fault with at all. As already noticed above, the earlier attempt by the petitioner to seek stay of the further proceedings with a specific request that the Revision Petition should await the decision of O.S. No.1134/2006 was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court. In fact, by the clarificatory order dated 05.03.2021, this Court had also observed that any order that was passed by the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:14305 WP No. 13263 of 2021 Deputy Commissioner on the pending two Revisions would be subject to the result of O.S. No.1134/2006. 13. In the light of this particular order of the Division Bench, the Deputy Commissioner was bound to consider the Revision on merits and at any event the petitioner could not have revived the claim for stay of the proceedings. 14. It may also be pertinent to state here in O.S. No.1134/2006 the entitlement of the Government in the land in question would not be subject matter of the suit and the suit is essentially to decide the rival claim of the 2nd respondent and, therefore, the pendency of O.S. No.1134/2006 would have no bearing whatsoever regarding the entry of the Government in the revenue records. 15. As far as judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is to be noticed here that all that the Full Bench has said is that any decision of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:14305 WP No. 13263 of 2021 the Civil Court will ultimately result in being reflected in the revenue records. 16. Apart from that there is no proposition of law that whenever a suit is filed, the proceedings before the Revenue Authorities either under Section 128, 129 and 136 are required to be stayed as far as decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajranga (supra) is concerned. It is to be noticed here that it was a case in which Section 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 was being considered in which sub-section (4) categorically states that whenever a copy of draft statement was being prepared, if a suit had been instituted, the proceedings would have to be stayed. Obviously, the decision rendered in the context of Section 11(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 can have no application to a Revision under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act. Consequently, there is no merit in the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:14305 WP No. 13263 of 2021 contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 17. In that view of the matter, in my view, there is no merit in the Writ Petition and the Writ Petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 18. Having regard to the fact that the Revision is pending adjudication from 2010, the Deputy Commissioner shall decide the Revision Petitions within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 19. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38