- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7404 WP No. 27117 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.27117 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.P.M.PRAKASH S/O LATE P. MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT PARUVAIAHNAPALYA VILLAGE HAROHALLI HOBLI HAROHALLI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 112 2. SMT.SHANTHAMMA D/O LATE P.MADAIAH W/O SRI. MUDDALINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT ANGRALLI VILLAGE CHEELURU POST HAROHALLI HOBLI HAROHALLI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 112 3. SRI.P.M.MAHADEVAIAH S/O LATE P. MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT PARUVAIAHNAPALYA VILLAGE HAROHALLI HOBLI HAROHALLI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 112. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ARUN K.S, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7404 WP No. 27117 of 2024 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION RAMANAGARA 4. THE TAHSHILDAR HAROHALLI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 112 5. SRI P.L.RAMESH S/O LATE LINGAIAH @ BOJJAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT PARUVAIAHNAPALYA VILLAGE HAROHALLI HOBLI HAROHALLI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 112. 6. SRI.MUTHAIAH @ MUTHA S/O LATE KENCHAMUTHAIAH 7. SRI.KRISHNAPPA S/O MUTHAIAH 8. SRI. M.CHANDRA S/O. MUTHAIAH 9. SRI. VASANTHA S/O MUTHAIAH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7404 WP No. 27117 of 2024 10. SMT.YELLAMMA W/O LATE MUTHAIAH 11. MUTHAIAH S/O YELLAMMA 12. SRI. SATYAMURTHY S/O YELLAMMA 13. SRI.MUTHAPPA S/O LATE ONTIKALMUTHAPPA 14. PRAMILA MINOR GUARDIAN FATHER PRAKASH S/O MUTHAPPA 15. PRAKASH MINOR GUARDIAN FATHER PRAKASH S/O MUTHAPPA 16. SRI. PILLAIAH S/O LATE MUTHAIAH 17. SMT.NETHRAVATHI D/O C.Y.RAMASWAMY 18. SRI.TYAGARAJU S/O SRI. NANJAPPA 19. SRI.VENKATESH S/O LATE VENKATESH RESPONDENT NOS.6 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT C/O SRI. M.KALAIAH M.G.ROAD, VANI TALKIES KANAKAPURA TOWN AND TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 112 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7404 WP No. 27117 of 2024 20. SRI.KRISHNAPPASHETTY S/O LATE RAMAPPASHETTY 21. 22. SMT.SHARADAMMA W/O SRI.KRISHNAPPA SHETTY RESPONDENT NOS.20 AND 21 ARE RESIDING AT NO.2246 23RD CROSS, K. G. ROAD BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 070 SHERESTEDAR RECORD OF RIGHTS TALUK OFFICE KANAKAPURA PIN CODE - 562112 S …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 TO R.4 SRI.R.S.RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R.5; SRI.S.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R.8 TO 11; R.21 - SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.08.2024 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT IN R.P.NO.31/2021-2022 DIRECTING THE TAHASILDAR, HAROHALLI TALUK TO ENTER THE NAME OF P.L.RAMESH / R-5 PERTAINING TO SY.NO.21/1 MEASURING 3 ACRES 39 GUNTAS OF GABBADI VILLAGE VIDE ANNX-H AND ETC. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7404 WP No. 27117 of 2024 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 This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 01.08.2024 passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner in R.P.No.31/2021-2022, which is evidenced at Annexure-H. 2. Both the petitioner and respondent No.5 are placing reliance on the judgment rendered in O.S.No.460/2006. Petitioner’s father and respondent No.5 together instituted a suit seeking declaration of their title over the land bearing Sy. No.19 measuring 4 acres 37 guntas and the land bearing Sy. No.21 measuring 4 acres 39 guntas and to declare the compromise decree obtained in O.S.No.119/1996 by respondent Nos.6 to 18 as null and void. The said suit is decreed by the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2010 and the petitioner’s father namely P.Madaiah and respondent No.5 are declared to be - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7404 WP No. 27117 of 2024 absolute owners in respect of the land bearing Sy. Nos.19 and 21. 3. It is evident from the records that the defendants in O.S.No.460/2006 had filed a Miscellaneous Petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking to set aside the decree passed in the said suit. This petition was numbered as Misc. Petition No.65/2014. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 has placed on record the proceedings related to this Miscellaneous Petition. Upon due consideration, the court dismissed Misc. Petition No.65/2014, thereby upholding the decree passed in O.S.No.460/2006. 4. Following the dismissal of the Miscellaneous Petition, respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner, took cognizance of the court’s decision and passed a fresh order directing the subordinate revenue authorities to effect necessary mutations in the revenue records. As per this order, the name of the petitioner’s father was directed to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7404 WP No. 27117 of 2024 be entered in the revenue records pertaining to agricultural land bearing Survey No.19. It is significant to note that this land, measuring a total of 4 acres and 37 guntas, was purchased by the petitioner’s father in the year 1972. On the other hand, respondent No.5 had managed to get his name mutated in respect of land bearing Survey No.21. Despite the decree being passed in O.S.No.460/2006, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that the petitioner’s claim is confined solely to Survey No.19, while respondent No.5 has acquired title over Survey No.21. Since respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner, has already passed an order directing the subordinate authorities to mutate the petitioner’s father’s name in respect of Survey No.19, the issue stands addressed with regard to this particular landholding. 5. While the present writ petition was pending, respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner, proceeded to modify his earlier order passed in R.P.No.20/2021-22. This modified order was issued on 15.01.2025. Upon a careful - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7404 WP No. 27117 of 2024 examination of the modified order, it is observed that the Deputy Commissioner has explicitly directed the subordinate revenue authorities to ensure that the name of the present petitioner continues to be reflected in the Record of Rights, Tenancy and Crops (RTC) pertaining to Survey No.19, which measures 4 acres and 37 guntas in total. This direction from the Deputy Commissioner effectively reaffirms the petitioner’s ownership over the said land. 6. The primary challenge raised in the present writ petition pertains to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in R.P.No.31/2021-22. Under this order, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the revision petition and quashed the earlier orders passed by both the Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner. Additionally, the Deputy Commissioner directed the concerned authorities to mutate the name of respondent No.5 in the revenue records concerning Survey No.21. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7404 WP No. 27117 of 2024 7. Upon perusal of the facts and legal position, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner could not have challenged the order passed in R.P.No.31/2021- 22, as the said order exclusively pertained to the mutation of respondent No.5’s name in respect of Survey No.21. This mutation was a direct outcome of the common decree passed in O.S.No.460/2006, which had already conclusively determined the respective ownership rights of both parties over their respective land parcels. Since the decree has clearly delineated that the petitioner is the lawful owner of Survey No.19 and respondent No.5 is the rightful owner of Survey No.21, the challenge raised by the petitioner against the order in R.P.No.31/2021-22 is legally untenable. 8. Taking cognizance of the subsequent developments in the matter, particularly the order passed in R.P.No.20/2021-22 by the Deputy Commissioner, wherein the subordinate revenue authorities were directed to mutate the petitioner’s name with respect to Survey - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7404 WP No. 27117 of 2024 No.19, this Court finds that the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous. Given that the Deputy Commissioner, through his modified order dated 15.01.2025, has already ensured that the petitioner’s name continues to remain in the RTC for Survey No.19, there remains no further cause of action for the petitioner to pursue this writ petition. Accordingly, in light of the said developments, this Court proceeds to pass the following order: 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is partly allowed. (ii) The order dated 01.08.2024 passed by respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner in R.P.No.31/2021-2022 (Annexure-H) is affirmed, in view of the decree passed in O.S.No.460/2006 and the subsequent dismissal of Misc. Petition No.65/2014. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:7404 WP No. 27117 of 2024 (iii) Respondent No.4 – Tahasildar is directed to restore the petitioner’s father’s name in the RTC records for land bearing Survey No.19. (iv) Respondent No.4 – Tahasildar shall also process and effect the consequential inheritance khata in accordance with the decree passed in O.S.No.460/2006. (v) The restoration of revenue entries in favor of the petitioner for Survey No.19 and respondent No.5 for Survey No.21shall remain subject to any challenge to the decree passed in O.S.No.460/2006. (vi) The revenue entries shall also be subject to the outcome of M.F.A.No.8488/2024. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7