- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19520 WP No. 23171 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 23171 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RAMAKKA, W/O LATE SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT HANCHARAHALLY VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU – 560049. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYABHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYABHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560036. 4. SRI JAYARAMAIAH, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA ALIAS KAKYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19520 WP No. 23171 of 2023 5. SRI HANUMATHAIAH, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA ALIAS KAKYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 6. SRI DEVARAJ, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA ALIAS KAKYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 6 ARE R/AT HANCHARAHALLY VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560049. 7. SRI K V MANJUNATH, S/O K N VENKATESHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.35, SUDARSHAN NILAYA, J.P.NAGAR 1st PHASE, BENGALURU - 560078. 8. REVENUE INSPECTOR, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU-560036. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MANJUNATH K, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3 AND R-8; SRI.B C SRIRAMA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 TO R-6; SRI.R BHADRINATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO - QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 19/08/2023 (WRONGLY TYPED AS 19/08/29) PASSED BY THE R-1 IN RP NO. 279/2014- 15 (ANNEXURE-A) AND QUASH/SET ASIDE THE DTD ORDER DTD 02/06/2014 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN RA (BE)175/2012-13 (ANNEXURE-B) AND CONSEQUENTLY GIVE NECESSARY DIRECTION OR ORDER TO THE R-3 TO RESTORE THE REVENUE RECORDS IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER AS PER MR NO. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19520 WP No. 23171 of 2023 H4/2012-13 (ANNEXURE-H) BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION. 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 ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 19.08.2023 (wrongly typed as 19.08.29) passed by respondent No.1 in R.P.No.279/2014-15 (Annexure – A) and the order dated 02.06.2014 passed by respondent No.2 in Case No. RA (BE) 175/2012-13 (Annexure – B), inter alia sought for direction to the respondent No.3 to restore the revenue records in the name of the petitioner as per MR No.H4/2012-13 (Annexure – H). 2. The facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of this writ petition are that, the petitioner is claiming to be the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.46/2 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19520 WP No. 23171 of 2023 measuring 1 acres 9 guntas of Kodigehalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East taluk. 3. It is stated in this writ petition that originally, the total extent of the land in Sy.No.46/2 was 3 acres 31 guntas belonged to one Pillappa son of Doddashankarappa and, after the demise of Pillappa, his wife Muniyamma and her two sons have sold an extent of 2 acres 22 guntas in Sy.No.46/2 of Kodigehalli Village in favour of Narayanappa son of Kunigal Bachappa and Muniyappa alias Kakyappa as per the registered sale deed dated 13.08.1956 (Annexure – C). 4. Thereafter, it is further stated that after the execution of the sale deed dated 13.08.1956, an extent of 1.21 acres of land in Sy.No.46/2 was remained with the father-in-law of the petitioner - Pillappa. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19520 WP No. 23171 of 2023 5. It is also stated that, pursuant to the execution of the registered sale deed referred to above, the name of the petitioner was shown pursuant to the mutation register on 10.09.2012 in M.R.No.H4/2012-13 (Annexure – H) in favour of the petitioner. 6. The aforementioned proceedings before respondent No.3 was questioned by the private respondents herein before respondent No.2 in Case No. RA (BE) 175/2012-13. 7. Respondent No.2 herein, as per Annexure – B, allowed the appeal filed by the private respondents herein and, as such, quashed the order dated 10.09.2012 in MR No.H4/2012-13 and, as such, directed to mutate the name of the private respondents herein in the revenue records. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein has preferred R.P.No.279/2014-15 and respondent No.1 herein by an order dated 19.08.23 (wrongly typed as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19520 WP No. 23171 of 2023 19.08.29) (Annexure – A), confirmed the order passed by respondent No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. 8. I have heard the arguments of Sri.Vijaya Kumar K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Manjunath K, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 8, Sri.B.C.Srirama Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6 and Sri.R.Bhadrinath learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7. 9. Sri.Vijay Kumar K, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to Annexure – H, wherein the proceedings in M.R.No.H4/2012-13, the land to an extent of 1.21 acres in Sy.No.46/2 of Kodigehalli Village, Bengaluru East taluk stands in the name of the petitioner and the said mutation entry was challenged by the private respondent herein before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has erroneously, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19520 WP No. 23171 of 2023 quashed the MR No.H4/2012-13. He also invites the attention of the Court to the registered sale deed dated 19.05.1964 (Annexure – K) wherein the subject matter of the land is pertinent to Sy.No.46/2 measuring 1 acre of the land and the said subject matter of the land is nothing to do with the land belonging to the petitioner, wherein the petitioner is the owner of the land to an extent of 1.21 acres in Sy.No.46/2. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 10. Sri.R.Bhadrinath, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent (respondent No.7) sought to justify the impugned orders passed by the respondents and contended that, the private respondents herein have purchased the land to an extent of 1.21 acres in Sy.No.46/2 from their vendor and, accordingly, sought to justify the impugned orders. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19520 WP No. 23171 of 2023 11. Learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.Manjunath K, submitted in favour of the orders passed by the respondents. 12. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful examination of MR No.H4/2012-13 (Annexure – H) dated 10.09.2012 refers to the name of the petitioner to the extent of 1.21 acres in Sy.No.46/2 of Kodigehalli village, Bengaluru East taluk. 13. It is forthcoming from the registered sale deed produced at Annexure – K, that the subject matter of the land in Sy.No.46/2 is to an extent of 1 acres 5 guntas of land. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that both respondent Nos.1 and 2 were not aware of the entire proceedings on record and illegally interfered with the mutation in MR No.H4/2012-13 (Annexure – H). - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19520 WP No. 23171 of 2023 It is also to be noted that, both the respondent - authorities have not considered the material on record based on which the revenue entries have been made as per Annexure – H. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the writ petition is to be allowed by setting aside the impugned orders produced at Annexure – A and B respectively. 14. It is also to be noted that respondent No.1 is not aware about the date on which the impugned order has been passed. It is shown in the impugned orders, the date on which the order is written and passed on 19.08.1929 and this Court is of the opinion that even respondent No.1 has not born during 1929 and if such being the case, this Court has seriously taken view that the respondent – authorities are passing the order casually and carelessly without looking into the records and such kind of action by the revenue authorities have to be deprecated. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19520 WP No. 23171 of 2023 15. Taking into consideration the observations made above, respondent No.3 is directed to restore the MR No.H4/2012-13 in favour of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. 17. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63