- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1903 WP No. 57722 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 57722 OF 2014 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. D. NAGARAJ S/O LATE C. DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 EYARS R/AT NO.155, VIDYARANYANAGAR MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE-560 023. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MURALI .M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 1(A) SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O SANJEEVAIAH DEAD BY LRs HANUMAKKA @ HANUMAMMA D/O VENKATAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT KADACHIKKANAPALYA HALAHALLI POST, THIPPASANDRA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-572 159. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT RAMANAGARAM-572 159. 3. THE TAHASILDAR MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT-572 159. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1903 WP No. 57722 of 2014 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARAM SUB-DIVISION RAMANAGARAM-572 159. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE FOR LRs OF R1; SRI. MANJUNATH .K, HCGP FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 IN REV. PETITION NO.62/2009-10, DATED 24.10.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Captioned petition is filed assailing the order dated 24.10.2013 passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner, whereby the revision filed by private respondents is allowed confirming the order passed by respondent No.4/Assistant Commissioner. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: Petitioner is asserting title over Survey No.63 measuring 3-34 acres inclusive of 14 guntas of Kharab, based on sale deed dated 22.05.2006. Petitioner is asserting that having purchased the property from his - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1903 WP No. 57722 of 2014 vendors has acquired valid right and title and therefore asserts possession. Based on this sale deed, it appears, the name of the petitioner was mutated to the RTC pertaining to the petition land. The private respondents feeling aggrieved by the impugned mutation thereby mutating petitioner's name preferred an appeal before respondent No.4/Assistant Commissioner, which came to be dismissed by affirming the disputed mutation thereby relegating the private respondents to seek redressal of their grievance by approaching the civil Court as there is a serious dispute as to whether the land was originally owned by Sanjeevaiah or Sanjeevi. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order of respondent No.4/Assistant Commissioner, private respondent No.1 preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Deputy Commissioner having adverted to the records however found that respondent No.1 is asserting title based on the sale deed of the year 1934 followed by - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1903 WP No. 57722 of 2014 settlement deed. It is precisely in this background, the Deputy Commissioner was of the view that respondent No.1 is able to substantiate as to how she is tracing her title over the petition land. Consequently, disputed mutation under M.R.No.1/2006-07 is set aside and the revision is allowed. While allowing the revision, the Deputy Commissioner has made a passing remark that petitioner though is asserting title based on the sale deed his vendor's source of title is not forthcoming from the records. The said order is under challenge. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while assailing the order of the Deputy Commissioner would vehemently argue and contend that the order of the Deputy Commissioner is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He would point out that petitioner was never heard in the matter and therefore, the order being in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice is not sustainable. Referring to the title documents, he would point out that petitioner is tracing title based on absolute - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1903 WP No. 57722 of 2014 sale deed executed by his vendors and therefore, the mutation effected by the Tahsildar referring to the title document is in accordance with law and clearly complies the mandate provided under Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. He has also tried to place reliance on the additional documents to substantiate that one Sanjeevee who is the widow of Narasimhaiah was the owner and after his death, his vendors have inherited the property which can be evidenced from the mutation under MR.No.36/2005-06. Citing this mutation, he would point out that his vendors were absolute owners who had acquired right by inheritance and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner without adverting to this mutation and the sale deed executed subsequently by his vendors has passed orders thereby setting aside the mutation certified by respondent No.3/Tahsildar. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has tried to effectively counter the petitioner's assertion. Referring to the statement of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1903 WP No. 57722 of 2014 objections filed by respondent No.1, he would point out that the dispute in regard to title over the property and possession is given quietus in an injunction suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.302/2014. He would further contend that though the suit was one for injunction simplicitor, the trial Court was called upon to advert to the title documents, more particularly, the sale deed obtained by the ancestor of respondent No.1 namely Rangappa and the consequent settlement deed executed by Rangappa during his life time in favour of his two sons namely Sanjeevaiah and Hanumanthaiah. 6. Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel on record and the learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP), the pivotal issue for determination by this Court is whether the petitioner, based on the sale deed dated 22.5.2006 purportedly executed by Anjanappa, Narasimhanurthy, Krishna D., Susheelamma, Gangamma, Gangappa, and Krishna, can assert title over the property in question and thereby seek mutation in his favor. The - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1903 WP No. 57722 of 2014 unequivocal answer to this question is "No." Although the petitioner initiated a bare suit for injunction, the trial court, in its analysis of the rebuttal evidence, particularly relied on the sale deed executed in favor of the ancestor of respondent No. 1 and subsequent documents, including the settlement deed marked as Exhibits D3, D4, and D5. This Court has meticulously examined trial court's view. The petitioner cannot establish his rights through mutation proceedings, as there exists a substantial cloud over his title. Consequently, the petitioner was obligated to file a comprehensive suit to substantiate his claim and establish a clear title over the disputed property. The petitioner’s attempt to secure mutation of his name based on a sale deed disputed by respondent No. 1 cannot form the basis for asserting his rights in such proceedings. 7. A cursory examination of the mutation entry at Annexure-B (Mutation Register No. 36/2005-06) reveals significant inconsistencies, rendering it dubious. This mutation is based on an order passed in Mutation Register - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1903 WP No. 57722 of 2014 No. 1/2006-07. However, the records fail to provide a copy of this order, raising further questions about its authenticity. Additionally, the mutation entry inaccurately identifies the owner as one Sanjeevee, wife of Narasimhaiah. This is in stark contrast to the actual facts on record, as the name of the husband of respondent No.1 is Sanjeevaiah, who is the elder son of Rangappa. It is worth noting that Rangappa had acquired the property through a sale deed as far back as 1934 and had two sons, namely, Sanjeevaiah and Hanumanthaiah. This fundamental discrepancy undermines the petitioner’s claim to the property in question. 8. The petitioner’s contention that the property purchased by Rangappa was originally surveyed as Survey No. 135 and that the absence of documents proving its reassignment as Survey No. 63 allows the petitioner to dispute respondent No. 1’s claim, appears to be an afterthought. The petitioner’s argument lacks merit, particularly in light of the fact that there was no contest - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1903 WP No. 57722 of 2014 over the identity of the property during the pendency of the bare suit for injunction. This Court finds that the issue of property identification, which is inherently complex and involves technical considerations, cannot be effectively adjudicated in mutation proceedings. 9. The petitioner has attempted to bolster his claim by submitting additional documents along with a memo during the writ proceedings. However, this Court notes that unless the petitioner has specifically pleaded the relevance and significance of these documents in the writ petition and substantiated their applicability to the disputed property, these documents cannot be taken into account. The mere production of additional documents without laying the necessary foundation in pleadings does not inspire confidence in their probative value, and this Court is disinclined to entertain them. 10. Furthermore, it is pertinent to highlight that the competent civil court, in its adjudication of the injunction suit, declined to grant a decree in favor of the petitioner. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:1903 WP No. 57722 of 2014 While doing so, the trial court duly considered the rebuttal evidence presented by respondent No. 1, including title documents that date back to 1934, which provide a stronger claim to the property. This Court, therefore, finds that unless the petitioner seeks a comprehensive declaration of his rights and title and demonstrates the legitimacy of his vendors' claim over Survey No. 63, no relief can be granted through mutation proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the judgment rendered in O.S. No. 302/14 has been challenged by way of an appeal, which is presently pending before this Court. While this Court refrains from making any observations that may prejudice the outcome of the appeal, it is imperative to note that the petitioner's rights remain subject to the final adjudication of the appeal. As such, any claim to mutation at this stage is premature and unwarranted. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:1903 WP No. 57722 of 2014 11. With this observation, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner. The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 91