- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16945 WP No. 14738 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 14738 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. DILIP KUMAR, S/O LALCHAND, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R.AT No.16/Y, 58TH 'B' CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, 14TH MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. T.SESHAGIRI RAO,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, CHAPPARADAKAL VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI DODDABALLAPUR ROAD, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16945 WP No. 14738 of 2023 4. THE TAHSILDAR, NELAMANGALA TALUK, AT NELAMANGALA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123. 5. SRI. PARASHURAM, S/O LATE YALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT No.87, 2ND CORSS, BEHIND DAYANANDA HOSPITAL, JAYANAGAR, NELAMANGALA ENCLAVE, NELAMANGALA TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123. 6. SRI. BYLAPPA, S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT No.546, RAGHAVENDRANAGAR, KUNIGALBYPASS, SHRI PRASANNA ANJANEYA LAYOUT, NELAMANGALA TOWN, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123. 7. SRI. RAMACHANDRA, S/O BYLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT No.44, 40 FEET ROAD, 1ST MAIN ROAD, BEHIND RAMKI LAYOUT, JANAPRIYA APARTMENT, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123. …RESPONDENTS (BYSMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI. VINOD PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R-5; R-6 & R-7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.06.2023 ONE PASSED BY THE R- - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16945 WP No. 14738 of 2023 4 IN CASE No.LRF.INA.JSD.1,2,3,4/1990-1991 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-M TO THE WP. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CAV ORDER 1. The facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as follows: 2. On 23.11.1970, Gangamma, daughter of Bilanarasamma being the lineal descendant of Rangappa, has sold the property bearing No.10 measuring 1 acre 24 guntas of Jakkasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, in favour of Mallaiah, son of Chikkamallaiah. 3. By virtue of Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, the land stood vested with the Government and Mallaiah being the occupant of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16945 WP No. 14738 of 2023 schedule property made an application under the said Act and during the pendency of the application, Mallaiah passed away, and his legal representatives through their Power of Attorney holder sold the schedule property in favour of Ashok Kumar vide Sale Deed dated 10.06.1996. 4. The Land Tribunal thereafter dealt with the application filed by Mallaiah and passed an order re- granting the land in favour of legal representatives of Mallaiah. Pursuant to the said order, the Tahsildar, Nelamangala issued Form No.10 on 19.12.1997 in favour of legal representatives of Mallaiah i.e., Akkayamma and Mallamma and as a consequence, the revenue entries were mutated in their favour vide MR.12/1997-98. Thereafter, the Revenue Authorities on the basis of the Sale Deed executed in favour of Ashok Kumar on 10.06.1996, once again mutated the entries vide MR.56/1998-99 in his favour and Ashok Kumar in turn sold the property - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16945 WP No. 14738 of 2023 under the registered Sale Deed dated 21.05.1999 to Dilip Kumar, the petitioner herein. 5. As the matter stood thus, in the year 2001, the Assistant Commissioner initiated proceedings against the petitioner for contravention of Sections 79A & 79B of the Land Reforms Act (for brevity, “the Act”) and ultimately passed an order on 08.10.2001 forfeiting the land in favour of the State. 6. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this order, preferred an appeal to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). 7. The Tribunal accepted the appeal and proceeded to set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner fundamentally on the basis of amendment to the Act, by which Sections 79A and 79B were omitted. 8. During the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, the 5th respondent herein made an application seeking to enter his name in the RTC on - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16945 WP No. 14738 of 2023 the ground that the aforementioned land was an Asadi inam land and he was one of the legal heirs who was entitled to register the khatha in his name. 9. Sri T.Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Tahsildar has basically held that the order passed by the Tribunal conferring occupancy rights in favour of legal representatives of Mallaiah was itself illegal and this was obviously wholly without jurisdiction. He submitted that since the order of the Tribunal has never been questioned, the 5th respondent, who claims to be the legal heir and also contends that the Sale Deed executed by Mallaiah was illegal, cannot be permitted to seek his name to be entered in the revenue record without laying a challenge to either the Sale Deed or to the order of the Tribunal. He therefore submits that the order of the Tahsildar, being wholly without jurisdiction, is liable to be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16945 WP No. 14738 of 2023 notwithstanding the fact that an appeal is provided under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (“the KLR Act”). 10. Sri Vinod Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent, on the other hand, contended that the Sale Deed executed in favour of Mallaiah was itself fraudulent and the vendor of Mallaiah i.e., Gangamma had absolutely no right and she had executed a fraudulent Sale Deed. 11. He submitted that the order of the Tribunal was also illegal and therefore, the Tahsildar was justified in coming to the conclusion that the revenue entries ought not to have been mutated in favour of legal heirs of Mallaiah, who were the recipient of an order of the Tribunal. 12. In light of the above, the only question that arises for consideration is: Whether the Tahsildar would have jurisdiction to direct an order - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16945 WP No. 14738 of 2023 of mutation, which was based on an order of the Tribunal and the registered Sale Deed, to be set aside on the claim of a person, who alleged that he was one of the legal heirs of the inamdars and was entitled to be registered as an occupant. 13. As observed above, it is not in dispute that in the year 1970, there was a registered Sale Deed executed by Gangamma in favour of Mallaiah. It is also not in dispute that in the year 1996, the legal heirs of Mallaiah through the GPA holder had sold the property in favour of one Ashok Kumar and thus, there were two registered Sale Deeds, one of the year 1970 and one of the year 1996, through which Gangamma had conveyed the property in favour of Mallaiah and Mallaiah’s legal heirs had conveyed the same in favour of Ashok Kumar. 14. It is also not in dispute that after the purchase of the schedule property by Ashok Kumar, the Tribunal did - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16945 WP No. 14738 of 2023 proceed to pass the order re-granting the land in question in favour of legal heirs of Mallaiah. This particular order would obviously enure to the benefit of Ashok Kumar since he had purchased the property under the registered Sale Deed. 15. It is no doubt true that Ashok Kumar had purchased the property after the land had stood vested in favour of the State and he would not have acquired any title. However, on the Tribunal conferring occupancy rights in favour of his vendor, it is clear that defect in his title was cured and he had acquired a valid title. In this view of the matter, the registration of khatha in favour of Ashok Kumar cannot be found fault with. 16. It is also not in dispute that Ashok Kumar has in turn sold the property in favour of Dilip Kumar, the petitioner herein under a registered Sale Deed dated 21.05.1999. It is therefore clear that flow of title to the present petitioner cannot be doubted at all. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16945 WP No. 14738 of 2023 Therefore, the khatha would have to be registered in the name of the present petitioner. 17. However, it is the case of the 5th respondent that Gangamma, who had sold the property to Mallaiah, did not have the authority to sell the land. In fact, the contention raised by the 5th respondent is extracted hereunder for the sake of convenience: “The lands in Sy. No. 10, measuring 1 acre 24 guntas, of Jakkasandra village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, is an Asadi Inam land. The statement of petitioner that, the land belonged to family members of Sri. Rangappa, is not a correct statement of facts, in the sense that, the 5th Respondent's grandfather, Sri. Gangappa is the son of Sri. Rangappa but the land was in the name of 5th Respondent's grandfather Sri. Gangappa, as he was performing the duty of Asadi. Further, the statement of the petitioner in para 2 of the writ petition that, Sri. Rangappa, father of Sri. Gangappa who is grandfather of the 5th respondent herein, had also a daughter by name Gangamma is false, and false to the knowledge of the petitioner. 5th respondent's grandfather is, "the only son" of Sri. Rangappa - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16945 WP No. 14738 of 2023 and Bylanarasamma (without any other son or daughter). When such being the case, Gangamma has no right whatsoever, over the land. Hence, she cannot sell the land. Thus, it is Gangappa and Gangappa only has right, title, interest over the property. 3. The further averments in para 3 of the writ petition that, Gangamma D/o Bylanarasamma is a lineal descendant of Rangappa is completely false, as already stated above, as she is not the daughter of Sri. Rangappa. Thus the sale deed in favour of Mallaiah, that is based upon fraud, is void ab- initio and thus has no legal sanctity. Under such a circumstance, Mallaiah, could not have filed application seeking occupancy right, for 2 reasons a) he cannot be called as a tenant under the relevant Inams Abolition Act, and b) he has no interest over the land, due to fraudulent sale. Even this can be looked into by the recitals, in the sale deed at Annexure-A to the writ petition, which simply states that, "Gangamma D/o Bylanarasamma had executed the sale deed without mentioning in the sale deed as to how she got the land". This is precisely because she had not right and there is a fraud, which vitiates everything. Any transaction based upon the fraud is void, and hence, no title, interest and - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16945 WP No. 14738 of 2023 right, over the property by the 5th Respondent and his family members are not affected in any manner, and they are the owners even as on this date. 4. It is further submitted that, the averments in para 4 of the writ petition that, after purchasing the schedule property from Gangamma, Mallaiah had filed an application for re-grant, is not correct, for 2 reasons, as Mallaiah cannot be treated as tenant under Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act 1955 and further he has not purchase the land also from its lawful owners. A land which purchased from a person totally stranger to the land, it cannot derive any title to the purchaser. Further, the averment itself shows that even an on the date of the application of re-grant Mallaiah even had not having, "the fraudulent sale deed. How Mallaiah could apply for re-grant being a stranger to the land, he only has to explain. The land Tribunal ought to have rejected the said application. The order at Annexure-B to the writ petition refers the name of Smt. Gangamma, in 3 times almost in different ways. 1) Once she has been referred as Gangamma W/o Ramaiah, in the cause title, also in the body of the order, 2) referred as Gangamma W/o Bylanarasaiah, and 3) - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:16945 WP No. 14738 of 2023 Gangamma W/o Gangappa. However, it is the averment in the writ petition that, Gangamma is sister of Gangappa. If these are looked into, it clearly shows how the proceedings before land Tribunal are and fraud is manifest on the face of the record. When records show, it is only Gangappa and no one else, only he has got the right over the property and after him, his son namely the father of the 5th respondent Yellappa, gets the right. Even Mr. Yellappa had given representation and applications to authorities explaining all these things, but no action was taken on his application. The 5th respondent's grandfather was, a tenant of the land. His name appeared in the revenue records, till 1997. Under such a circumstance, the order of the Land Tribunal which is based on fraud, cannot give any right title interest to Mallaiah, or his wives. Hence, the present petitioner or his vendor will not get any title over the property. Under these circumstances the averments in the para 4 of the writ petition, that, Mallaiah has purchased the property is not true and correct and as such he could not have filed an application also. 5. It is further submitted that, the statement of the writ petitioner in para 5 of the writ petition that, before the land Tribunal, Sri. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:16945 WP No. 14738 of 2023 Yellappa S/o Gangappa, (proposing to state that 5th respondent’s father), had opposed the claim of Mallaiah is totally false. The 5threspondent's father was not a party before Land Tribunal, and it is Yellappa S/o Bylappa was a party who is not a father of 5th respondent. However, annexure- B to the writ Petition which is the order of land Tribunal clearly shows that, 5th respondent's father was not a party. The land Tribunal without issuing a notice to the father of the 5th respondent had passed an order. In the order of the land Tribunal, nothing is mentioned regarding Yellappa S/o Bylappa the 3rd respondent. However it has referred to Yellappa S/o Gangappa (S/o Gangamma). Then, Gangamma becomes Gangappa's wife, this is not correct. There is total confusion and chaos. Thus the order of the Land Tribunal is based upon fraud and misrepresentation and wrong and false statement of facts. Hence, even the averment in the writ petition is false. In such a circumstance the averment that, land Tribunal had rejected the claim of the father of 5th respondent is totally false. Hence, even the statement of Gangamma W/o Ramaiah was disbelieved is false as the identity Gangamma itself is in doubt and which Gangamma is referred to is not forthcoming and Gangamma is nowhere - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:16945 WP No. 14738 of 2023 connected with 5th respondent's Grandfather as already stated above. Further, in the order of Land Tribunal it is clearly observed that, when they have visited it was revealed that it is Gangappa S/o Rangappa is "Baraavardudara (tenant)". The Land Tribunal Clearly admits that it Grandfather of the 5th respondent is tenant but what it says is, Smt. Gangamma wife of Gangappa, has sold the property, which is not correct Gangappa's wife name is Gowramma, not Gangamma and even according to the sale deed of Gangamma at Annexure-A to the writ petition, it is the name of the person who has sold the property is Gangamma d/o Bylanarasamma. Hence, the averment in the writ petition in para 2 that Gangamma is a D/o Rangappa is not forthcoming from the sale deed at Annexure-A to the writ petition Gangamma is D/o Rangappa and it is Gangappa only not Rangappa who is doing Asadi performance. Thus it becomes very clear that order of the Land Tribunal as well as the averment in the writ petition are not true and correct and they are false and contrary to the records.” 18. As could be seen from the contentions advanced by the 5th respondent, the 5th respondent is basically - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:16945 WP No. 14738 of 2023 stating that Gangamma was not related in any way to his grandfather – Gangappa and therefore, the Sale Deed executed by her, in favour of Mallaiah was fraudulent. 19. It is settled law that unless a Sale Deed is declared to be void by a competent Court, the effect of the Sale Deed cannot be ignored and merely because the 5th respondent contends that the Sale Deed is fraudulent that would not enable the Revenue Authorities to ignore the Sale Deed. 20. It may also be pertinent to state here that the order of the Tribunal which recognized the right of Mallaiah to be conferred occupancy rights has not been challenged by the 5th respondent. So long as the order of the Tribunal remains unchallenged, it is obvious that the conferment of occupancy rights has become final, and the Revenue Authorities are bound to act on the basis of the order of the Tribunal. Since the recipients of an order of the Tribunal have - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:16945 WP No. 14738 of 2023 conveyed the property under the registered Sale Deed and the purchaser has also thereafter conveyed the property under the registered Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner, the Revenue Authorities were bound to give effect to this particular order and register the khatha in the name of the petitioner. 21. However, despite this legal position, the Tahsildar under the impugned order has stated as follows: “F ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýgÀĪÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÁð£ÀĸÁgÀ, £Á£ÀÄ, CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£Àå f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹gÀĪÀAvÉ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀܼÀ ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁr J¯Áè PÀAzÁAiÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦vÀ d«ÄãÀÄ C¸Á¢ £ËPÀ® d«ÄãÀÄ DVzÀÄÝ, Dgï.Dgï.78 gÀAvÉ ºÁUÀÆ 1973-74 £Éà ¸Á°£À ¦æ°ªÀÄ£Àj zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄAvÉ UÀAUÀ¥Àà ©£ï gÀAUÀ¥Àà gÀªÀgÀÄ §gÀ§®ÆwzÁgÀ DVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CfðzÁgÀgÀĺÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀAvÉ UÀAUÀªÀÄä PÉÆÃA gÁªÀÄAiÀÄå gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀªÀiÁgÁlzÀ ªÀåªÀºÀgÀuÉAiÀÄAvÉ D PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæªÀÅ ªÀÄ®èAiÀÄå JA§ÄªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj UÀAUÀªÀÄä PÉÆÃA gÁªÀÄAiÀÄå gÀªÀjUÉ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦vÀ d«Ää£À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀé, C¢üPÁgÀ CxÀªÁ »vÁ¸ÀQÛ ªÀiÁgÁlzÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è E§âgÀ°®è, ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ, 1991£Éà E¸À«AiÀÄ°è ¥sÀªÀw ªÀÄ®èAiÀÄå£À ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄìzÁgÀgÉAzÀÄ £É®ªÀÄAUÀ® ¨sÀÆ - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:16945 WP No. 14738 of 2023 £ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½UÉ ¨sÀÆ ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀt PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ C¢ü¨sÉÆÃUÀzÁjPÉ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃrCfð ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, CzÀÄ PÀÆqÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁVzÉ KPÉAzÀgÉ NªÀð ªÀåQÛ d«Ää£À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀéªÀ£ÀÄß PÉüÀĪÀÅzÀgÀ eÉÆvÉUÉ C¢ü¨sÉÆÃUÀzÁjPÉ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß PÉüÀ®Ä ¸ÁzsÀå«®è. C¢ü¨sÉÆÃUÀzÁjPÉ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß UÉÃtÂzÁgÀgÀ£ÁV PÉüÀĪÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðªÉAzÀgÉ D ªÀåQÛAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À ªÀåªÀ¸ÁAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß UÉÃtÂzÁgÀ£ÁV UÉÃtÂAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀÄvÀÛ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. F J¯Áè ªÀåªÀºÀgÀuÉUÀ¼ÀÄ CfðzÁgÀjUÁUÀ° CxÀªÁ CªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ §A¢gÀ°®è. ªÉÆøÀ¢AzÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÀÄÆ® ªÀåªÀºÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ°è ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D£ÀAvÀgÀzÀ ªÀåªÀºÀgÀuÉUÀ¼É®èªÀÇ PÁ£ÀƤ£ÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. CzÀÄzÀjAzÀ F PɼÀV£ÀAvÉ DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁrzÉ. PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆç½ dPÀ̸ÀAzÀæ UÁæªÀÄ ¸À.£ÀA.10 gÀ 1-24 J/UÀÄ «¹ÛtðzÀ d«ÄäUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ªÀÄÆ® C¸Á¢ £ËPÀj d«Ää£À §gÀ§®ÆwzÁgÀ£À ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄìzÁgÀgÀÄ/ªÀA±À¸ÀÜgÀÄ DVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ D d«Ää£À PÀAzÁAiÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ Dgïn¹ PÁ®A 9 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 12 gÀ°è CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃAzÀt ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÁvÀäPÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÄzÀÝjAzÀ ªÉÄîä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ EvÀgÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £É®ªÀÄAUÀ® vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, PÀ¸À§ ºÉÆç½, dPÀ̸ÀAzÀæ UÁæªÀÄ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.10 gÀ 1-24 J/UÀÄ «¹ÛtðzÀ d«ÄäUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¥ÀºÀtÂ/Dgïn¹AiÀÄÆ ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ J¯Áè PÀAzÁAiÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À°èAiÀÄÆ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸ÀĪÀAvÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ DzÉò¸À¯ÁVzÉ. F DzÉñÀªÀÅ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦vÀ d«ÄäUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÁzÀgÀÆ ªÁådå, zÁªÉ CxÀªÁ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:16945 WP No. 14738 of 2023 ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ CxÀªÁ EvÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀÄ¢üÃPÀgÀtzÀ°è «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ ¨ÁQ EzÀÝgÉ CzÀgÀ CAwªÀÄ DzÉñÀPÉÌ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ DzÉò¸À¯ÁVzÉ.” 22. As could be seen from the reasoning of the Tahsildar, he has basically stated that the order of the Tribunal was itself incorrect. The Tahsildar who was exercising his power under Sections 128 and 129 of the KLR Act and registering the khatha in accordance with acquisition of title by a particular applicant cannot obviously come to the conclusion that the order of the Tribunal, on the basis of which a khatha was registered, was incorrect. 23. In my view, the order of the Tahsildar is wholly beyond his jurisdiction, and he has in fact gone on to treat himself as the Appellate Authority. This is obviously impermissible in a proceeding under Section 129 of the KLR Act. It is therefore clear that the order passed by the Tahsildar cannot be sustained and the same would have to be quashed. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:16945 WP No. 14738 of 2023 24. It is no doubt true that the order of the Tahsildar passed under Section 129 of the KLR Act is amenable to appeal under Section 136(2) of the KLR Act. However, in the present case, since the Tahsildar has gone on to conclude that the order of the Land Tribunal itself was incorrect and that the Sale Deed executed by Gangamma was also incorrect, thereby establishing that he was acting wholly without jurisdiction, this is surely a case which deserves interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The Tahsildar is directed to restore the entries as it stood prior to passing of the impugned order in favour of the petitioner. 25. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 152