- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18807 WP No. 22952 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 22952 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. PAPANNA, S/O. LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT. POOJARAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 112. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAKESH B. BHATT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 110. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18807 WP No. 22952 of 2024 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203. 4. TAHASILDAR, HOSKOTE TALUK OFFICE, HOSKOTE TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. 5. VENKATAGIRIYAPPA, S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT POJARAMANAHALI VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 112. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH BABURAO, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. S.S. ZULAPI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30/07/2024 PASSED BY R2 IN REVISION PETITION 87/2024 (ANNX-A) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18807 WP No. 22952 of 2024 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, assailing the order dated 30.07.2024 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.2. 2. The facts in nut shell for the purpose of adjudication of this writ petition are that, the land bearing Sy.No.26 (New Sy.No.33) of Poojaramanahalli Village, Hoskote Taluk, measuring 5 acre 31 guntas of land is granted to one Smt.Pillamma in GMF.No.*110/53. It is also stated in the writ petition that, after the death of grantee- Smt.Pillamma, the petitioner and his sister, being the legal heirs have sold 4 acre of land out of 5 acre 31 guntas, which was granted to their mother-Smt.Pillamma, in favour of one Sri.Kempanna. It is also stated that, the said purchaser-Sri.Kempanna, had got title in respect of only 4 guntas of land as per the registered Sale Deed dated 13.03.1967 and the remaining 1 acre 31 guntas is continued with the legal heirs of grantee, However, the said purchaser-Sri.Kempanna got mutated to an entire *corrected vide Chambers order dated 16.07.2025. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18807 WP No. 22952 of 2024 extent of 5 acre 31 guntas in his name, which is contrary to law and therefore, the petitioner herein has filed appeal before respondent No.3, challenging the mutation made in favour of purchaser- Sri.Kempanna in respect of the entire extent of 5 acre 31 guntas of land in RA (HO)137/2020. The Respondent No.3 has passed an order dated 02.08.2021 (Annexure-C), by allowing the appeal and as such, directed the revenue authorities to enter the name of the purchaser-Sri.Kempanna only in respect of 4 acre out of 5 acre 31 guntas of land. The said order of respondent No.3 at Annexure-C was challenged in RP.No.128/2021 and respondent No.2 herein by order dated 24.05.2022, confirmed the order passed by respondent No.3 in Regular Appeal(HO) No.137/2020 dated 02.08.2021. Thereafter, the mutation was made as per Annexure-E to the writ petition. It is further state that, respondent No.5 along with his brothers have challenged the mutation made as per Annexure-E before this Court in WP.No.13362/2022 and this Court by order dated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18807 WP No. 22952 of 2024 04.12.2023 (Annexure-J) dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and reserved liberty to the petitioner to work out their remedy before the competent authority. Thereafter, the private respondents have filed RP.No.87/2024 before respondent No.2 herein, challenging the order dated 02.08.2021 in Appeal No.137/2020 and respondent No.2 herein vide order dated 30.07.2024, allowed the appeal and as such, set-aside the order dated 02.08.2021 passed in Appeal No.137/2020. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. I have heard Sri. Rakesh B.Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Siddharth Baburao, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri. S.S.Zulapi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. 4. It is contended by Sri. Rakesh B Bhat learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the order passed by respondent No.3 in Appeal No.137/2020 dated 02.08.2021 has been confirmed by respondent No.2 in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18807 WP No. 22952 of 2024 RP.No.128/2021 as per Annexure-D and in that view the matter, respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to pass one more order as per Annexure-A to the writ petition and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 5. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to the order dated 08.04.2024 in WP.No.14741/2020 and contended that, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-A is without jurisdiction and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, Sri. S.S.Zulapi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has contended that, what was challenged before respondent No.2 in R.P.No.87/2024 is the order dated 02.08.2021 in R.A.No.137/2020 and also the order dated 01.04.2006 in RUC (A) No.77/2004- 05 and therefore, he submitted that, pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court in WP.No.13362/2022 (Annexure-J), the impugned order at Annexure-A is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18807 WP No. 22952 of 2024 passed and same is in accordance with law and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Siddharth Baburao, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, sought to justify the impugned order at Annexure-A. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the land to an extent of 5 acre 31 guntas has been granted in favour of the mother of the petitioner. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is the case of the petitioner that, the land to an extent of 5 acre 31 guntas has been granted in favour of the mother of the petitioner and out of which, 4 acres of the land has been sold in favour of one Sri.Kempanna. In this regard, the mutation has been made in respect of the entire extent of the land i.e., 5 acre 31 guntas and same was challenged before respondent No.3 in R.A.No.137/2020 (Annexure-C). The respondent No.3 vide order dated 02.08.2021 allowed the appeal and held that, out of 5 acre 31 guntas of land, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18807 WP No. 22952 of 2024 the mother of the petitioner has sold an extent of 4 acre of land and as such, interfered with the mutation entry made in favour of respondent No.2, therein (son of mother of the petitioner-Sri.Kempanna) and the same was challenged by the private respondents in R.P.No.128/2021 as per Annexure-E. The respondent No.2 vide order dated 24.05.2022, has confirmed the order passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-C. It appears that after confirmation of the order of respondent No.3 by respondent No.2 at Annexure-D, the mutation has been made as per Annexure-E to the writ petition. It is also forthcoming from the writ papers that the private respondents herein have challenged MR.No.T5/2021-22 dated 20.06.2022 and the said writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.12.2023 in WP.No.13362/2022 (Annexure-J). It is also forthcoming from the Annexure-K, wherein, the private respondents herein have filed one more revision petition under Section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act in R.P.No.87/2024 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18807 WP No. 22952 of 2024 challenging the order dated 02.08.2021 in R.A.No.137/2020, which has already reached finality as per the order dated 24.05.2022 in R.P.No.128/2021 (Annexure-D). The prayer made in R.P.No.87/2024 reads as under: "Wherefore, the appellants prays that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to call for the records from the respondent No.1 after hearing the parties and allow this appeal in the interest of justice and equity, and set aside the orders passed by the 1st respondent in favour of the 3rd respondent in RA (HO) 137/2020 dt:2.8.2021 in respect of old Sy.No.26 New Sy.No.33 measuring 1 acre 31 guntas, situated at Poojaramanahalli village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bangalore Rural district." (Emphasis Supplied) 9. Taking into consideration that the private respondents herein have challenged the order dated 02.08.2021 in R.A.No.137/2020 which has already reached finality as per Annexure-D in R.P.No.*128/2021, I am of the view that, respondent No.2 herein has no jurisdiction to pass one more order, contrary to the order passed at Annexure-D to the writ petition. In this regard, it is relevant to extract paragraph No.10 in *corrected vide Chambers order dated 16.07.2025. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18807 WP No. 22952 of 2024 WP.No.14741/2020 disposed of on 08.04.2024, which reads as under: "10. Having regard to the said judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court has held that it is clear that the quasi judicial authorities are not permitted to review their orders unless such powers are expressly vested in them by the statute. The provision in Section 25 only enables the revenue authorities to invoke the inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of the revenue court. It was therefore held that the provisions contained in Sections 24 or 25 do not expressly provide for review of an order passed by the revenue authorities." 10. Following the declaration of law made by this Court and also it is a well settled principal in law that, the quasi-judicial authorities have no authority under law to review their orders unless such powers are expressly conferred by statue, I am of the view that, respondent No.2 herein has no jurisdiction to pass one more order against the order passed by respondent No.2 in R.A.No.137/2020, which is contrary to the earlier order passed at Annexure-D in R.P.No.128/2021. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18807 WP No. 22952 of 2024 11. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to pass order at Annexure-A, and the said authority has no jurisdiction to review the earlier order as prayed for by the appellant in R.P.No.*128/2021. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. The order dated 30.07.2024 in R.P.No.87/2024 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.2 is hereby set-aside. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54 CT: BHK *corrected vide Chambers order dated 16.07.2025.