1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 13462 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1 . D. M. MUNIYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS SRI. LAKSHMISHA .D.M S/O LATE D.M. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A DEVANAHALLI VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE VILLAGE SIDLAGHATTA TALUK 2 . SRI. D.M. PRAKASH S/O D.M. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A DEVANAHALLI VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE VILLAGE SIDLAGHATTA TALUK 3 . D.M. SURESH S/O D.M. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A DEVANAHALLI VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE VILLAGE SIDLAGHATTA TALUK 4 . D.M. AVINASH S/O D.M. SURESH 2 AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/A DEVANAHALLI VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE VILLAGE SIDLAGHATTA TALUK 5 . SMT. PILLAMMA W/O LATE D.M. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A DEVANAHALLI VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE VILLAGE SIDLAGHATTA TALUK ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRASHANTH .P.N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . D. M. PILLAPPA S/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/A DEVENAHALLI VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE VILLAGE SIDLAGHATTA TALUK 2 . SATYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT. VENKATARONAMMA W/O LATE SATYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A DEVENAHALLI VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE VILLAGE SIDLAGHATTA TALUK 3 . SMT. DAYAMMA D/O LATE SATYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A 118, AGARA VILLAGE AND POST 3 DUNGASANDRA HOBLI MULBAGALU TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT 4 . SMT. NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT MAJOR D/O LATE SATYAPPA R/A DEVENAHALLI VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE VILLAGE SIDLAGHATTA TALUK 5 . SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A DEVENAHALLI VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE VILLAGE SIDLAGHATTA TALUK 6 . SRI. DAYAPPA S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A DEVENAHALLI VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE VILLAGE SIDLAGHATTA TALUK 7 . SRI. NARAYANAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS SRI. NAGARAJAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A DEVENAHALLI VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE VILLAGE SIDLAGHATTA TALUK 8 . SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 4 R/A DEVENAHALLI VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE VILLAGE SIDLAGHATTA TALUK 9 . NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A DEVENAHALLI VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE VILLAGE SIDLAGHATTA TALUK 10 . SRI. NAGARAJAPPA S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A DEVENAHALLI VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE VILLAGE SIDLAGHATTA TALUK 11 . SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/A DEVENAHALLI VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE VILLAGE SIDLAGHATTA TALUK 12 . SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/A DEVENAHALLI VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE VILLAGE SIDLAGHATTA TALUK 13 . SRI. M. VENKATESHAPPA @ GUNDAPPA S/O MUNICHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/A BALENAHALLI VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI 5 SIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 14 . SRI. D.P. MUNEGOWDA S/O D.M. PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A DEVENAHALLI VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI SIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT 15 . SRI. D.P. DEVARAJ S/O PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/A DEVANAHALLI VILLAGE JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI SIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 16 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKBALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPUR 17. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA .S.M S/O MANJUNATHA .S.L AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT KUMBHIGANAHALLI H-CROSS, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MUNIRAJA .M, ADVOCATE FOR R12 AND R13; SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R16; SRI. ADITYA .M, ADVOCATE FOR R17; R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 ARE SERVED; V/O DATED 23.04.2023 SERVICE TO R8, R11, R15 ARE SERVED; R15 IS TREATED AS LR OF DECEASED R1) 6 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO. R.A. 06/14-15 ON 20/01/2023 SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PASSED IN R.A.(C) 61/2008-09 DATED 10/02/2014 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-S FOR THE REASONS OF THE ORDER BEING CAPRICIOUS, BIASED, IMPUGNED AND DELIBERATE IN NATURE. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 06.02.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM C.A.V. ORDER The petitioners in the captioned petition are primarily aggrieved by the order dated 20.1.2023 passed by respondent No.16/Deputy Commissioner in R.A.No.06/14- 15, wherein the order of the Assistant Commissioner passed in R.A.(C)61/2008-09 dated 10.2.2014 is set aside. 2. Facts leading to the case are as under: The subject matter of the petition is 4-00 acres of land in Survey No.34 situated at Devanahalli Village, 7 Jammanakote Hobli, Sidlaghatta Taluk, Chikkabalapura District. Petitioners are tracing title through Late D.M. Muniyappa, father of petitioners 1 to 4 and husband of petitioner No.5. Petitioners asserts that their father was cultivating 2 acres of land in Survey No.34 and accordingly, applied for grant. Petitioners assert that their father was granted 2 acres of land vide Grant Certificate No.LND45- 327 dated 7.10.1959. On survey petitioners asserts that their father was additionally allotted two acres of land. Pursuant to the grant certificate issued by the Tahsildar petitioners claim that granted land is reassigned new Survey number bearing No. 57. 3. Petitioners are also placing reliance on the decree obtained by their father in O.S.No.122/1995 against the family of respondents. Petitioners contend that the said suit is decreed thereby declaring petitioners' father as the absolute owner. 8 4. Petitioners contend that respondents by securing collusive decree by way of a compromise petition in O.S.No.17/2007 got their names mutated to the Katha and other revenue document changed in their respective names. Petitioners aggrieved by the illegal acts of the respondents initiated proceedings in R.A.(c).61/2008-2009 before the Assistant Commissioner. Petitioners contend that the Assistant Commissioner has rightly set aside the mutations and katha was made in the name of the legal heirs of late Munishamappa i.e. the petitioners herein. While the revision initiated by the respondents herein was pending before the Deputy Commissioner in R.A.No.6/2014, petitioners allege that one of the legal heirs of D.M. Pillappa filed a suit in O.S.No.279/2014. Similarly, one more legal heir namely Narayanamma also instituted the suit in O.S.No.122/2016 against the petitioners and other legal heirs of late Jaderahalli Munishamappa seeking declaration that she is the absolute owner of new Survey No.57 9 measuring to an extent 1.02 acres out of four acres. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, which is now under challenge on the ground that inspite of declaring the petitioners' father as the absolute owner, the Deputy Commissioner has proceeded to reverse the order of the Assistant Commissioner. 5. Per contra, respondents 12 and 13 on receipt of notice have contested the petition by filing detailed statement of objections. Apart from denial of the averments made in the writ petition, respondents 12 and 13 on the contrary have contended that the ancestor of respondent No.12 Munishamappa alias Jaderahalli Munishamappa was the original owner and he acquired right pursuant to the grant made in his favour. Respondents 12 and 13 further contended that from the date of grant, revenue records continued in the name of Munishamappa alias Jaderahalli Munishamappa. After his death, his legal heirs names are mutated to the RTC. Respondents further 10 contended that petitioners' father namely B.M. Muniyappa never questioned the mutations. Respondent No.12 further specifically claimed that she filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.312/1982 and the said suit was decreed granting 32 guntas to Respondent No.12 in the petition land. Respondent No. 12 also placed reliance on the final decree drawn in FDP.1/1992. Respondents have further contended that petitioners' father has neither challenged the preliminary decree obtained by respondent No.12 which was much prior to exparte decree obtained by petitioners' father in O.S.No.122/1995. Citing these judgments and also the documents produced along with the statement of objections, respondents 12 and 13 have sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 17/purchaser has also taken similar stand while resisting the writ petition filed by the petitioners. 11 7. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners, learned counsel for respondents 12 and 13 and respondent No.17 have exhaustively canvassed their arguments. 8. Upon a meticulous examination of the records and documents submitted by both parties, this Court observes that there exist conflicting claims regarding the title to the petition property. Both the petitioners and the respondents rely upon grant orders and decrees passed by competent civil courts to assert their respective rights. The petitioners claim to have derived their title from their late father, who was allegedly granted the land through a grant order dated 07.10.1959. Additionally, the petitioners' father had obtained an ex-parte decree in O.S.No.122/1995, which they contend supports their ownership claim. 9. On the other hand, the respondents strongly dispute the petitioners’ assertions, maintaining that their ancestor, Munishamappa alias Jedarahalli Munishamappa, 12 had independently acquired rights over the same land pursuant to the grant order issued by the Tahsildar on 07.10.1959 after due consideration of his application. The respondents further emphasize that the name of Munishamappa alias Jedarahalli Munishamappa was duly mutated in the revenue records as early as 1965-66, and this mutation continued uninterrupted until 1991-92. To substantiate their claim, the respondents have produced RTC extracts annexed as Annexure-R3, demonstrating that the name of father-in-law of Respondent No. 12 was lawfully recorded in the revenue records based on the grant order issued in his favor. 10. The petitioners primarily rely on the ex-parte decree obtained by their father in O.S. No. 122/1995, asserting that it affirms their right to the land. However, upon careful scrutiny of the said decree, this Court finds that it was granted ex-parte, meaning it was passed in the absence of a contesting defendant. There is no detailed 13 reasoning or substantive discussion in the decree that conclusively establishes how the petitioners’ father acquired a valid title over the land in question. 11. In response, respondents have placed on record judgments and decrees from multiple legal proceedings to counter the petitioners' claims. Specifically, Respondent No. 12 had earlier filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S. No. 312/1982, which was clubbed with O.S. No. 214/1982, a suit for injunction filed by one Muniyamma. While the injunction suit (O.S. No. 214/1982) was dismissed, the partition suit (O.S. No. 312/1982) was decreed in favour of Respondent No. 12, granting her ownership over 32 guntas of land. Subsequently, Respondent No. 12 obtained a final decree in FDP No. 1/1992, confirming her entitlement to 32 guntas in Survey No. 37. 14 12. To reinforce their legal position, the respondents have also produced revenue records showing that mutations were duly effected based on the final decree in FDP No. 1/1992. These records, annexed as Annexures-R6 and R7, reflect that the name of Respondent No. 12 was lawfully recorded in the RTCs pursuant to the decree, further weakening the petitioners' claims. 13. The records submitted by Respondents 12 and 13 further reveal that Narayanappa, son of the original grantee, initiated a suit for partition in O.S. No. 17/2007. This litigation culminated in a compromise decree, which was subsequently acted upon by the revenue authorities. As a direct consequence of the compromise decree, fresh mutations were carried out in favour of the respondents, recognizing their lawful acquisition of rights over the disputed property. Moreover, Respondent No. 13 has acquired portions of the property through alienations, and fresh mutations reflecting these transactions are evidenced 15 in Annexures-R10 and R11. Additionally, the conversion order annexed as Annexure-R14 establishes that Respondents 12 and 13 have secured permission to convert the land for non-agricultural purposes, further substantiating their claim in regard to possession and use of the land. 14. A crucial aspect that emerges from the records is that during the pendency of the present petition, the petitioners have filed a bare suit for injunction in O.S. No. 95/2024, seeking to protect their alleged possession of the land. However, despite the land being subjected to conversion, the petitioners have failed to account for the subdivision of the survey number in their pleadings. 15. Additionally, Respondent No. 13 has filed a suit, O.S.No.511/2016,which remains pending, while another suit in O.S. No. 122/2016 initiated by Respondent No. 12 is also yet to be adjudicated. These three suits—O.S.No. 16 95/2024, O.S. No. 511/2016, and O.S. No. 122/2016 involve direct disputes between the petitioners and the respondents. 16. A thorough examination of revenue records dating back to 1965 clearly indicates that the name of Respondent No.12’s ancestor has been consistently recorded in the RTC extracts. Notably, the petitioners' father never challenged these long-standing mutations during his lifetime, further undermining the credibility of the petitioners' belated claims. 17. Another critical factor is that Respondent No. 12 had already secured a preliminary decree in O.S. No. 312/1982, followed by a final decree in FDP No. 1/1992, conclusively determining his entitlement to the land. However, the petitioners continue to assert that the respondents’ rights were nullified by the subsequent decree obtained by their father in O.S. No. 122/1995. This Court 17 finds this contention unsustainable, as the decree in O.S. No. 122/1995 was obtained much later and does not automatically override the legally binding judgments and decrees previously secured by the respondents. 18. Given the complex legal and factual issues involved, this Court is of the opinion that the Deputy Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction in directing the mutation of the petitioners' names for the first time by invoking revisional powers under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The issues at hand pertain to title disputes, which cannot be adjudicated in revenue proceedings but must instead be determined through a properly instituted civil suit. 19. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner’s order, which sought to alter the mutation entries in favour of the petitioners based solely on the decree obtained in O.S. No. 122/1995, effectively disregarding earlier decrees in favour 18 of Respondent No. 12, is legally unsustainable. The revenue authorities are not the appropriate forum to decide inter se title disputes between the parties. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner erred in entertaining the appeal and directing the revenue authorities to effect changes in the RTCs based solely on the decree obtained by the petitioners' father. Such an order amounts to virtually nullifying the legitimate decrees obtained by Respondent No. 12, which is impermissible in law. 20. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, this order will not come in the way of the petitioners in seeking appropriate reliefs in the suit filed by them in O.S.No.95/2024. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE *alb/-