- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11699 WP No. 34985 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 34985 OF 2014 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. H VEERAPPA @ VEERANNAGOWDA S/O LATE BASAVANYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O GOGGA VILLAGE, HOSUR HOBLI SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHANMUKHA G C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA DISTRICT SHIMOGA-577201. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAGAR SUB DIVISION SAGAR, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201. 3. THE TAHSILDAR SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201. 4. GADIGEMMA W/O MALLAPPA GOWDA D/O SHIDDAPPAGOWDA @ SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O MARAVALLI VILLAGE SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11699 WP No. 34985 of 2014 5. HALESHAPPA S/O SHIDDAPPAGOWDA @ SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O GOGGA VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201. 6. MAHESHAPPA S/O SHIDDAPPAGOWDA @ SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O GOGGA VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201. 7. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O SHIDDAPPAGOWDA @ SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O GOGGA VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SMT. MANJULADEVI.R.KAMADOLLI., ADVOCATE FOR R-4 TO R-7) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIMOGA, DATED.10.7.2014 (ANNEXURE-H) AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SAGAR SUB-DIVISION, SAGAR, DATED.13.8.2012 (ANNEXURE-F), ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has sought for change of khatha on the premise that the suit filed by Basamma in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11699 WP No. 34985 of 2014 O.S.No.106/2006 which was incidentally for injunction, was dismissed. The Tahsildar accepted this plea and mutated the revenue entries in the name of the petitioner vide MR.No.42/2011-12. 2. Being aggrieved, respondents 4 to 6 who were the children of Basamma preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner, taking note of the fact that the khatha was changed on the basis of dismissal of suit filed by Basamma, came to the conclusion that the order of mutation was illegal and he accordingly, set aside the order made in favour of the petitioner and this order of Assistant Commissioner has been affirmed in revision by the Deputy Commissioner. 3. Admittedly, even according to the Assistant Commissioner the change of mutation made in respect of MR.No.42/2011-12 only on the basis of dismissal of suit filed by Basamma in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11699 WP No. 34985 of 2014 O.S.No.106/2006 which incidentally only for injunction this was clearly illegal. 4. It is settled law that the revenue entries can be mutated only on the basis of a registered instrument, inheritance or by a decree of a competent Court. The dismissal of suit for injunction would not amount to grant of declaration that the petitioner was the owner of land in question. The Assistant Commissioner was therefore justified in setting aside the order of mutation and restoring the name of the petitioner's vendor's predecessor-in-title. I find no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. The petition is therefore dismissed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49