- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11138 WP No. 18709 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 18709 OF 2022 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI V GANGARAJU S/O VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 2. SMT. B.N SHASHIKALA W/O LATE V SRINIVAS @ SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 3. SRI. DINAKARA S S/O LATE V SRINIVAS @ SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 4. SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA @ LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 5. SRI. RAMESH S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 6. SMT. MALA K @ NIRMALA D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA W/O GAJENDRA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 7. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE VENATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11138 WP No. 18709 of 2022 8. SRI. SURESH BABU S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 9. SRI. VENKATARAMANASWAMY S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 9 ARE R/AT AVATHI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. 10. SMT. NAGARATHNA D/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA W/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 11. SMT. PADMAVATHI D/O VENKATESHAPPA, W/O M KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PETITIONERS NO.10 AND 11 ARE R/AT KATTIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK -56. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR SWAMY K B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE TAHASILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562 110 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11138 WP No. 18709 of 2022 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT DISTRICT COMPLEX, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. 5. SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA S/O VENKATASHAMAPPA R/AT AVATHI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4, SRI. SHRIDHAR N. HEGDE, ADV. FOR R5.) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.06.2022 PASSED IN THE REVISION PETITION IN R.P.NO.94/2020 PASSED BY THE R4- THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11138 WP No. 18709 of 2022 ORAL ORDER The revenue entries in respect of Sy.No.95/9 of Avathi village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk was admittedly standing in the name of Venkataramanappa-respondent No.5 herein as on 2011-12. However, on the basis of a compromise decree obtained by the petitioners in OS.No.502/2009, to which, Venkataramanappa was not a party, the entries were changed vide MR H-33/2012-13. 2. This order of mutation in MR H-33/2012-13 was challenged by respondent No.5 by filing an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner however, dismissed the appeal and proceeded to observe that the entries would be subject to the result of OS.No.398/2013, which had been filed by respondent No.5, in which, the compromise decree obtained by the petitioners had been challenged. 3. Being aggrieved by this order of the Assistant Commissioner, the revision was filed under Section 136(3) of KLR Act and Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order has set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and has - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11138 WP No. 18709 of 2022 directed the name of the Venkataramanappa to be restored and continued in respect of lands in question. 4. Since, admittedly, the name of Venkataramanappa was found as of the year 2011-2012, any mutation made on the basis of decree, to which, he is not a party would be improper. 5. It is also contended by respondent No.5, that it is a matter of fact that the father of the petitioners had instituted OS.574/1996 seeking for declaration and injunction and the same was dismissed. If the claim of the petitioners' father that he was the owner, was not accepted by the Civil Court, obviously the name of his children cannot be entered in the records and that too on the basis of a subsequent compromise decree passed amongst the children of the plaintiff in OS.574/1996. 6. In this view of the matter, the order of Deputy Commissioner, setting aside the order of mutation made in favour of the petitioners cannot be found fault with. The writ petition is therefore, be dismissed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11138 WP No. 18709 of 2022 7. However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have also filed a suit OS.818/2022, in which, respondent No.5 is a party. In the event that aforementioned suit OS.No.818/2022 is decreed and the Civil Court holds that the petitioners herein have a legal right over the property in question, it is needless to state that the revenue entries would abide by the result of such suit. Subject to above, writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58