- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:527 WP No. 28670 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.28670 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI.RAMAKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE JAVARAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDENT OF SHIVAKOTE VILLAGE HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK PIN CODE - 560089 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN K.G ROAD BENGALURU -560009 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN K.G ROAD BENGALURU -560009 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK YELAHANKA NEW TOWN BENGALURU -560064. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:527 WP No. 28670 of 2024 4. SRI. JAYARAMAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT. DHANALAKSHMI W/O NARAYANMURTHY D/O LATE S.J. JAYARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDENT OF S.M.GOLLAHALLI KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK PIN-561203 5. VIMALA D/O LATE S.J.JAYARAMAIAH W/O DODDANAGALAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDENT OF HOSAHALLI PALYA VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK PIN-562162 6. SHARADAMMA D/O LATE S.J.JAYARAMAIAH W/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDENT OF KAMAKSHIPURA VILLAGE BYATHA POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK PIN-560089 7. MANJUNATH S/O LATE S.J.JAYARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 8. SRI.KEMPAIAH S/O LATE JAVARAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:527 WP No. 28670 of 2024 9. SRI. RAMEGOWDA S/O LATE JAVARAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 10. SRI. NARAYANA S/O LATE JAVARAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.7 TO 10 ARE R/AT SHIVAKOTE VILLAGE HESARAGHATTA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK PIN: 560089 11. SRI. G.V. PRASAD S/O LATE G. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.5/1, SAISADANA RAMA FARM COMPOUND LAKSHMIPURA VIDYARANYAPURA POST BANGALORE - 560097 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.MANJUNATHA, HCGP FOR R.1 TO R.3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 26.02.2024 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN RP NO.119/2019 ANNX-A 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:527 WP No. 28670 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP. 2. The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the orders passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner. 3. The subject matter of the petition are two agricultural lands bearing Sy. No.54/1 measuring 1 acre 14 guntas and Sy. No.54/2 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas. 4. The petitioner’s grievance is that the action of respondent No.3 - the Special Tahasildar in directing to mutate the joint names of the petitioner and private respondent Nos.4 to 10 is contrary to admitted fact of partition among the family members, which is evidenced from the order of respondent No.3 – Special Tahasildar vide Annexure-E. 5. Referring to the partition deed, the petitioner asserts that respondent No.3 - the Special Tahasildar could not have ordered to effect joint names contrary to the exclusive allotment of portions in the above two survey numbers. The petitioner has also tried to emphasize the admitted factual - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:527 WP No. 28670 of 2024 matrix emerging from the order passed by respondent No.3 - Special Tahasildar. Referring to Annexure-G, the petitioner contends that this partition is admitted by all the parties, more particularly, the family members. 6. Per contra, Learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP), however, taking this Court to the sale deed, which is produced at Annexure-H, would point out that the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 10 have sold petition lands in favour of respondent No.11. He would also further bring to the notice of this Court that since the entire extent is sold by the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 to 10, the captioned writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He has also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner and other private respondents have already approached the Civil Court by filing a suit in O.S.No.1084/2018 questioning the sale deeds in favour of respondent No.11. 7. If the petition lands are sold under the registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.11, the petitioner’s right cannot be adjudicated in mutation proceedings. The fact that the comprehensive suit is already filed by the petitioner and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:527 WP No. 28670 of 2024 private respondent Nos.4 to 10 questioning the sale deeds obtained by respondent No.11, no indulgence is warranted. Since the petitioner’s claim that this document is fraudulent document, it is a trite law that the burden lies on the petitioner to substantiate that the said sale deed is obtained by practicing fraud. 8. It is quite strange to note that when property is already alienated in favour of respondent No.11, the order of respondent No.3 - the Special Tahasildar to restore the entries in the joint names runs contrary to mandate provided under Sections 128 and 129 of KLR Act. Given the transfer of ownership, such an order appears to be of limited practical consequence. The petitioner's right in respect of the petition land, if any, will be subject to outcome of the pending suit in O.S.No.1084/2018. In that view of the matter, no indulgence is warranted. The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21