- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7719 WP No. 23690 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.23690 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/AT NO.696, NEAR AXIS BANK MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560037 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.Y.R.SADASIVAREDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.K.H.THIMMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS REVENUE COMMISSIONER M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU -560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT K.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560009 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION K.G.ROAD BENGALURU-560009 Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7719 WP No. 23690 of 2024 4. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, (NOW EAST TALUK) K.R.PURAM BENGALURU-560047 5. SRI. C NARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT MUNNEKOLALA VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560037 6. 6(A) 6(B) 6(C) 6(D) SRI KODANDAREDDY SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT.VEDAVATHI W/O LATE KODANDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS SMT.SWATHI D/O LATE KODANDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS SURAJ KODANDA REDDY S/O LATE KODANDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS SAGAR KODANDA REDDY S/O LATE KODANDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.6(A) TO (D) ARE R/AT NEAR AXIS BANK MARATHAHALLI MAIN ROAD - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7719 WP No. 23690 of 2024 MARATHAHALLI BENGALURU-560037 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MANJUNATHA K, HCGP FOR R.1 TO R.4; SMT.L.MANJULA, ADVOCATE FOR R.5; SRI.J.M.RAJANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R.6(A TO D)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE R-3 IN RRT(2) DISPUTE-27- 91-92 ON 12.12.1992 VIDE ANNX-F AND IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE R-3 IN RA(BE)174/2010-11 ON 04.02.2014 BY VIDE ANNX-G AND IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 IN RP- 500/2017 ON 02.08.2024 VIDE ANNX-J AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The present writ petition challenges the concurrent orders issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3, contending that the order passed by respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner is in clear violation of the judgment delivered by the competent Civil Court in O.S. No.8970/2010. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7719 WP No. 23690 of 2024 2. I have heard the arguments presented by the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos.5 and 6. 3. The core issue requiring consideration by this Court is: Can the private respondents assert a claim over 10 guntas of land and have their names mutated? My answer is emphatically no. 4. This issue is effectively resolved by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.8970/2010. The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.8970/2010 is placed on record by the petitioners, which is evidenced at Annexure-H. 5. The petitioner acknowledges that they have sold 10 guntas of land in favour of the private respondents. However, the private respondents having acquired title to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7719 WP No. 23690 of 2024 an extent of 10 guntas, however, have obtained the mutation under MR No.15/1992-93 to the entire extent of 20 guntas. The disputed 10 guntas of land was referred to as schedule ‘B’ property in the suit filed by the private respondents in O.S.No.8970/2010 seeking declaration and for possession in respect of the 10 guntas of land. The above said suit is dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2019. 6. In the light of the dismissal of the suit filed by the private respondents, this Court is of the view that the respondents cannot lay a claim over 10 guntas of land and therefore, no indulgence is warranted under Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The impugned mutation, which is now the subject matter of this petition, is liable to be set-aside pursuant to the dismissal of the suit by the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.8970/2010. The present petitioner, who has retained 10 guntas of land having alienated 10 guntas out - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7719 WP No. 23690 of 2024 of total extent, is entitled to get her name restored to the remaining to an extent of 10 guntas. 7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 12.12.1992 passed by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-F and the order dated 04.02.2014 passed by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-G and the order dated 02.08.2024 passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-J are hereby quashed and set-aside. (iii) Consequently, respondent No.4 – Tahasildar is hereby directed to forthwith restore the petitioner’s name to an extent of 10 guntas strictly aligning with the judgment rendered by the Civil Court in O.S.No.8970/2010. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7719 WP No. 23690 of 2024 (iv) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of order copy. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4