- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12332 WP No. 17539 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 17539 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHANNAPPA S/O LATE SRI GANGAYYA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/O KANNAHALLI VILLAGE, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINOD GOWDA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, KHANDAYA BHAVANA, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU-560009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SUB DIVISION, 2ND FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVANA, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU-560009. 4. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, KHANDAYA BHAVANA, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12332 WP No. 17539 of 2023 KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU-560009. 5. SRI SHIVAKUMAR S/O SRI CHIKKA EERANNA @ CHIKKA ERAPPA @ CHIKKA VIRAYYA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O NO.36, M KRISHNA SAGARA, SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOLBI, BENGALURU-560060. 6. SRI PRABHU S/O SRI CHIKKA EERANNA @ CHIKKA ERAPPA @ CHIKKA VIRAYYA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O NO.36, M KRISHNA SAGARA, SULIKERE POST, KENGERI HOLBI, BENGALURU-560060. 7. SMT CHANAMMA D/O SRI CHIKKA EERANNA @ CHIKKA ERAPPA @ CHIKKA VIRAYYA, R.O NO.39, GURU SAARVABHOWMA NAGAR, BEHIND THE CLUB, NAYANDAHALLI, BENGALURU-560039. 8. SMT HEMAVATHI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, D/O SRI CHIKKA EERANNA @ CHIKKA ERAPPA @ CHIKKA VIRAYYA, R.O NO.39, GURU SAARVABHOWMA NAGAR, BEHIND THE CLUB, NAYANDAHALLI, BENGALURU-560039. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4; SMT. S.SUSHEELA., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. T.R.RAMESH., ADVOCATE FOR R-5, R-7 AND R-8; R-6 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12332 WP No. 17539 of 2023 ORDER DTD 10.7.2023 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO.RP.225/2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-J, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. It is the case of the petitioner that Chikka Eeranna alias Chikka Eerappa @ Chikka Virayya (hereinafter referred to as 'Chikka Eeranna') had no issues and he had executed a Will in favor of the petitioner on 16.06.1965, and on his death by virtue of the said bequest, the petitioner had inherited the property under the Will and consequently, his name is entitled to be registered as the Khatedar. 2. The petitioner contends that this plea was rightly accepted by the Assistant Commissioner and the name of the petitioner was ordered to be entered in the revenue records. 3. It is the case of the contesting respondents i.e., respondent Nos.5 to 8 that they are the children of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12332 WP No. 17539 of 2023 Chikka Eeranna. They denied the assertion of the petitioner that Chikka Eeranna had no legal heirs and they specifically contended that they are the legal heirs of Chikka Eeranna and consequently, their names are entitled to be entered in the revenue records. 4. It is also contended that a claim for entry in the revenue records on the basis of a Will cannot be entertained at all unless a Civil Court gives an appropriate declaration in this regard. 5. As already stated above, it is not in dispute that the Khata stood in the name of late Chikka Eeranna. The Will said to have been executed by Chikka Eeranna is disputed. 6. In the same way, the petitioner also disputes that respondent Nos.5 to 8 are the children of Chikka Eeranna and it is contented that Chikka Eeranna had no legal heirs at all. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12332 WP No. 17539 of 2023 7. It is pertinent to note that, there is a dispute as to when Chikka Eeranna died. It is contended by the petitioner that Chikka Eeranna died in the year 1974, whereas it is the case of respondent No.5 to 8 that he actually died in the year 1989. 8. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8 placed reliance on the Death Certificate to indicate that Chikka Eeranna passed away in the year 1989. 9. Be that as it may, it is clear from the documents produced that though Chikka Eeranna died a long time ago, i.e., either in 1974 or in 1989, but still the name of Chikka Eeranna continued in the revenue records till the year 2018, and for the first time, the name of the petitioner was entered on the basis of the Will. In other words, for eighteen long years, the name of Chikka Eeranna continued as the Khatedar even though he was no more. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has instituted a case in P & S.C. No.44 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12332 WP No. 17539 of 2023 of 2023 in which he is seeking for validation of the alleged Will executed by Chikka Eeranna. 11. It is clear that unless the Civil Court declares that Chikka Eeranna had executed a Will in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot have a right to have his name entered in the revenue records. 12. Though in the normal circumstances, the name of the legal heirs of the khatedar would have to be entered in the revenue records, in this particular case, that course of action would be impermissible, because for about nineteen years, respondent Nos.5 to 8 took no steps to get their names entered in any records and they only chose to challenge the order passed in favor of the petitioner. 13. In that view of the matter, in my view, it would also not be appropriate to permit the name of respondent Nos.5 to 8 to be entered in the revenue records on the basis that they are the legal heirs of Chikka Eeranna, especially when the assertion of theirs that - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12332 WP No. 17539 of 2023 they are the legal heirs is seriously disputed by the petitioner. 14. In the result, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it would be appropriate to direct the revenue entries to be continued in the name of the deceased Chikka Eeranna until the Civil Court takes a decision regarding the entitlement of either the petitioner or respondent Nos.5 to 8 in respect of the land in question. 15. To this extent, the orders of the authorities are modified. 16. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. SD/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42