- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20157 WP No. 12704 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.12704 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. GURUPRASAD S S/O LATE N G SUJAYA KUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS, 2. SRI. ROHAN S, S/O LATE N G SUJAYA KUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS, 3. SMT. AISHWARYA S, D/O LATE N G SUJAYA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.13, 4TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR JAIN TEMPLE, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MS BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20157 WP No. 12704 of 2025 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, JILLADALITHA BHAVANA, 1ST FLOOR, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. 5. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE MUTTAPPA, AGED : MAJOR, R/AT ALAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. 6. SMT. UMADEVI, W/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA, AGED : MAJOR, R/AT ALAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLL, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20157 WP No. 12704 of 2025 7. SMT. PADMA, D/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA, AGED : MAJOR, R/AT ALAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. 8. SRI. KIRAN, S/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA, AGED : MAJOR, R/AT ALAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. 9. SRI. RAJU, S/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA, AGED : MAJOR, R/AT ALAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. 10. SMT. PADMAVATHI, W/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED : MAJOR, R/AT ALAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. 11. SMT. DHANALAKSHMAMMA, W/O P NAGARAJU, AGED : MAJOR, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20157 WP No. 12704 of 2025 R/AT NO.1423, OPP. ARALUMALLIGE SCHOOL, KUCHAPPANA PETE, WARD NO.14, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. 12. SRI. N RAVI, S/O P NAGARAJU, AGED : MAJOR, R/AT NO.1423, OPP. ARALUMALLIGE SCHOOL, KUCHAPPANA PETE, WARD NO.14, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2024 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT IN REVISION PETITION NO.215/2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER DATED 02.11.2022 PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, IN PROCEEDINGS NO. RA (DO).322/2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-A1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20157 WP No. 12704 of 2025 ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in R.P.No.215 of 2022 (Annexure-A) and order dated 02.11.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura, in RA No.(DO):322 of 2022 (Annexure-A1) passed by the respondent No.3 in respect of the subject land. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the land bearing Sy.No.58, measuring 09 acres of in Alahalli village, Doddaballapura Taluk originally belonged to one Basave Gowda and the said Basave Gowda sold an extent of 05 acres in Sy.No.58 to Sri. C. Ramanna as per registered Sale Deed dated 30.08.1934 (Annexure-B). It is further stated in the writ petition that, the said Basave Gowda has sold the remaining extent of acres of 04 acres of land in Sy No. 58, in favour of Smt. Salimabiamma. It is also stated in the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20157 WP No. 12704 of 2025 writ petition that, the after the death of C. Ramanna, his children, namely, Gurunanjundaiah and Sri. Gurushankaraiah, succeeded to the schedule properties. After the death of Gurushankaraiah, his wife Kamalakashma and her children succeeded his property. Gurunanjudaiah died on 25.11.1969. It is also stated that, after the death of Gurunanjudaiah, his wife C.G. Nagarathnamma and her children- namely, N.G. Shobhadevi and Sri. N.G. Sujaykumar succeeded to the estate of deceased Gurunanjudaiah. It is also stated that, there was a partition in the family effected on 05.01.1970, which came to be registered on 08.07.1970, among the family members and Kamalakashma on the one hand and C.G. Nagarathnamma on the other side as per Annexure-D. It is further stated that, as per the registered Partition Deed produced at Annexure-C, the land bearing Sy.No.58 had fallen to the share of C.G. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20157 WP No. 12704 of 2025 Nagarathnamma and her children. It is also stated that, pursuant to the Partition Deed produced at Annexure-C, Sy No. 58 has been assigned with new survey number as Sy No.58/3 and accordingly, revenue authorities changed the mutation entries in favour of C.G. Nagarathnamma and children and RTC extracts are produced at Annexure-D series. It is also stated in the writ petition that, in the year 1979-80, Sy.No.58/3 was assigned with new survey number as Sy.No.87 and the extent of land was shown as 4.22 acres instead of 05 acres, and in this regard, RTC extracts have been produced at Annexure-E series. It is further stated that, during the year 1987-88 the khata in respect of subject land was changed from 82 to 81 and same is reflected in Annexure-F series. The petitioner has also produced the Rashidi Patta standing in the name of C.G. Nagarathnamma as per Annexure-F8. The petitioner has also produced the tax - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20157 WP No. 12704 of 2025 paid receipts as per Annexure-G series. In the meanwhile, C.G. Nagarathnamma had requested the jurisdictional Thasildar to change the khata into her son name, as per the representation dated 30.07.1998, (Annexure-H and H1), and in this regard, notice was issued as per Annexure-H2 and thereafter the khata was changed into the name of Sri. N.G. Sujaya Kumar, as per MT No.1 of 1998-99 (Annexure- H3). Thereafter, RTC extracts were also modified as per Annexure-J series. The son of C.G. Nagarathnamma- Sri. N.G. Sujaya Kumar, was paying tax in respect of subject land as per Annexure-K series. Having said so, the petitioner has stated that one Lakshmamma and others-respondent Nos.5 to 10 herein have preferred proceedings in Appeal No. RA (Do)322/2022 under Section 136(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and challenging the mutation entries in MT No.1 of 1998-99 which stands in the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20157 WP No. 12704 of 2025 name of Sri. N.G. Sujaya Kumar and the respondent No.3 by order dated 02.11.2022, allowed the appeal preferred by the private respondents herein as per Annexure-A1. The said order of the respondent No.3 was questioned before respondent No.2, in RP No. 215 of 2022 by the petitioners. The respondent No.2, vide order dated 28.11.2024 passed impugned order at Annexure-A and being aggrieved by the same the petitioners have presented this writ petition. 3. I have heard Sri. Pundikai Ishwara Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Navya Shekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State. 4. Sri. Pundikai Ishwara Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, the entry made in favour of the petitioners was changed by the respondent-authorities after lapse of 23 years and as - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20157 WP No. 12704 of 2025 there is inordinate delay in challenging the entry made in MT No.1 of 1998-99, the finding recorded by the both the respondent-authorities requires to be interfered with for exercising the jurisdiction belatedly. It is further contended, by referring to the judgment of this court in the case of Shivanna vs. Narayana Gowda reported in ILR 1995 KAR 1000 that, the respondent authorities have no jurisdiction to condone the inordinate delay of nearly 23 years and therefore, sought for interference of this court and argued that, the dismissal of the appeal and petition by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively requires to be interfered with in this writ petition. 5. Per contra, Smt. Navya Shekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, referring to the findings recorded by the respondent-authorities, submitted that the mutation made in favor of the petitioners in respect of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20157 WP No. 12704 of 2025 the subject land has been rightly interfered with in view of the registered Sale Deed dated 31.10.2022 executed in favor of the private respondents Nos. 5 to 10. Therefore, she sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and upon careful examination of the finding recorded by both the respondent-authorities, it is undisputed that the mutation proceedings in MT No.1 of 1998-99 stands in the name of the petitioners for more than two decades. Furthermore, it is apparent from the averments in the writ petition, as well as the findings recorded by the respondent-authorities, that the private respondents claim right over the subject land based on the registered Sale Deed dated 31.10.2022 (Annexure-M). In view of the above, since a registered Sale Deed has been executed in respect of the subject land in favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 12, the finding - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20157 WP No. 12704 of 2025 recorded by respondent No. 2 in Annexure-A is just and proper and does not warrant interference, especially as the mutation has been modified in accordance with the said registered Sale Deed. In that view of the matter, the petitioners herein have to establish their right over the land and as such in question and as such, it is open for the petitioners to approach the competent Civil court, challenging the aforementioned registered Sale Deed dated 31.10.2022 (Annexure-M) in a manner known to law, if so advised. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36