- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19586 WP No. 16407 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 16407 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. CHAYADEVI D/O GANGAPPA @ POOJARI GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.959 6TH WARD, NAYAKARA COLONY C BLOCK, VALMIKI NAGAR GUDIBANDE TOWN CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-561209. 2. SRI. GANGAPPA @ POOJARI GANGAPPA LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.867, 6TH WARD NAYAKARA COLONY, C BOCK VALMIKI NAGAR, GUDIBANDE TOWN CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 209. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.S.GAUTHAM, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MS BUILDINGS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19586 WP No. 16407 of 2025 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT CHICKBALLAPUR-562101. 3. THE CHIEF OFFICER PATTAN PANCHAYAT GUDIBANDE CHICKBALLALPUR DISTRICT-562109. 4. SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O NARASIMHAPPA MAJOR RESIDING AT 6TH WARD NAYAKARA COLONY GUDIBANDE TOWN-562109. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. MOHANA CHANDRA .P, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2024 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHICKBALLAPUR A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND DISMISS THE SAID APPEAL OF THE PARTY RESPONDENT TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. 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 are aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2024 passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-E. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19586 WP No. 16407 of 2025 While entertaining an appeal filed by respondent No.4 under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipality Act, 1964, respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner has allowed the appeal and directed to delete the name of petitioner No.2. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. Perused the records. 3. Petitioner No.2, on the strength of a registered sale deed dated 13.03.1992, is asserting right and title over the petition property. Petitioner No.1 is tracing title through petitioner No.2 based on a registered Gift Deed 27.12.2023 executed by petitioner No.2. 4. Conversely, respondent No.4 is tracing right and title through his grandmother. Respondent No.4 claimed that his grandmother had purchased the very petition property under registered sale deed dated 26.10.1965. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19586 WP No. 16407 of 2025 5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 – the Deputy Commissioner reveals that although he has taken note of the pendency of a comprehensive civil suit instituted by the petitioners in respect of the very same property, he has nevertheless proceeded to allow the appeal and directed the deletion of the name of petitioner No.2 from the property records. The primary basis for such a direction appears to be the Deputy Commissioner’s finding that the sale deed dated 13.03.1992, relied upon by the petitioners, is a "created document." This Court is constrained to observe that such a finding rendered by the Deputy Commissioner amounts to a clear overreach and is patently without jurisdiction. The Deputy Commissioner, acting in a quasi-administrative capacity under revenue statutes, cannot assume or usurp the jurisdiction vested exclusively in a competent Civil Court to adjudicate upon questions of title, validity of sale deeds, or genuineness of documents. By recording such an observation regarding the authenticity of a registered sale - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19586 WP No. 16407 of 2025 deed without any judicial adjudication, the Deputy Commissioner has travelled beyond the scope of his authority, which is impermissible in law. 6. It is not in dispute that petitioner No.2 is placing reliance on the registered sale deed executed in the year 1992. However, the records disclose that petitioner No.2's name came to be reflected in the property extract only in the year 2019. More importantly, the comprehensive suit filed by the petitioners in O.S. No.130/2024, wherein they have sought to assert and protect their right and title over the petition property, is admittedly pending consideration before the competent Civil Court. In the said suit, an interim order of injunction has been granted in favour of the petitioners, thereby protecting their possession and interest in the suit property. In this backdrop, this Court is of the considered view that any request for restoration of the petitioners’ names in the revenue records on the strength of the 1992 sale deed cannot be entertained at this stage. However, this Court also clarifies that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19586 WP No. 16407 of 2025 observations made by the Deputy Commissioner touching upon the validity or genuineness of the sale deed have no legal sanctity and are inconsequential, as they do not bind the Civil Court nor preclude it from independently adjudicating the issue. 7. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the civil suit is presently subjudice, this Court deems it appropriate to clarify that any observations or findings recorded by respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order shall not prejudice or influence the adjudication of rights in the pending civil suit. The question of title and the genuineness of the sale deed dated 13.03.1992 shall be independently determined by the competent Civil Court uninfluenced by any findings or remarks made by respondent No.2. Though the name of petitioner No.2 has now been directed to be deleted from the revenue records, such deletion shall be subject to the outcome of O.S. No.130/2024, and any final decision taken by the Civil Court in that suit shall prevail over the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19586 WP No. 16407 of 2025 entries in the revenue records. Accordingly, the impugned order, in so far as it affects the petitioners' title, is held to be without jurisdiction and shall not affect the pending adjudication in the civil suit. All contentions are kept open to be contested before the Civil Court. With these above observations, the writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21