- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1134 WP No. 28954 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 28954 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. SHIVAPPA, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, MEDITHAMBIHALLI VILLAGE, HUTHURU HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANANDA B.V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KUMBARHALLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 102. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, NEAR COURT CIRCLE, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101. 3. THE THASHILDAR, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR TOWN, TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 101. Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1134 WP No. 28954 of 2024 4. SRI. HANUMAPPA, S/O LATE DYAVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, NARAYANAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS 5. SRI. SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 6. SRI. MAHESH, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 7. SRI. KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE DYAVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 4, 5, 6 AND 7 ARE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF MEDITHAMBIHALLI VILLAGE, HUTHURU HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-P DATED 16/07/2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN R.A.P NO. 24/2024 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1134 WP No. 28954 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, evidenced at Annexure-P. 2. Facts leading to the case are as under: The subject matter of the petition is an agricultural land bearing Sy.No.89/1 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas situated at Medi Thambihali village, Huthuru Hobli, Kolar Taluk and District. The petitioner herein asserts that this land was admittedly inam land and after the abolition of imams, the petitioner's father, asserting tenancy rights, filed an application seeking grant of occupancy rights before the authority. The competent authority, namely, Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams, declared the petitioner's father, Muniyappa, as an occupant of the land bearing Sy.No.891 vide order dated 10.07.1963. The present petitioner in the captioned petition is tracing title through his father. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1134 WP No. 28954 of 2024 3. Respondents No.4 to 7, however, contended that their father, namely, Dyvappa, has purchased the granted land under a registered sale deed dated 29.09.1965 from one Venkataramaiah. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his father, Muniyappa, had no locus to meddle with the petition land, which was admittedly inam land and therefore, alienation by his father before applying for a grant does not convey any title and subsequent sale in favour of the father of private respondents No.4 to 7 in 1965 also does not convey any title in favour of private respondents. 4. Although the RTC records reflect that the grantee's name continued in the revenue records, the title documents, particularly the registered sale deed of 1965, unequivocally indicate that the property was conveyed through a valid registered instrument. The question of whether the petitioner's father possessed a salable title in 1962 and whether the transfer could operate under the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1134 WP No. 28954 of 2024 doctrine of "feeding the estoppel" as enshrined in Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is a contentious issue. Section 43 provides that if a person fraudulently or erroneously represents themselves as being authorized to transfer property and subsequently acquires an interest in it, the transfer, at the transferee's option, operates on the interest so acquired. These matters, being fundamentally factual and legal, fall within the purview of a competent civil court for proper adjudication. 5. Respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the private respondents only on the ground that the grantee had no salable title on the date conveyance and therefore, private respondents, who are the second purchasers, will not acquire title and therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Respondent No.1- Deputy Commissioner, however, has reversed the order passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, citing the conveyance in 1965 under a registered sale deed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1134 WP No. 28954 of 2024 6. If these significant details are looked into, this Court is of the view that the private respondents No.4 to 7, who are asserting title based on a 1965 registered sale deed, are entitled to get their name mutated in the RTC. Whether petitioner's father, Muniyappa, had a salable title in 1962 before securing a grant at the hands of Special Deputy Commissioner and whether the first purchaser had a salable title in conveying this petition land to the father of respondents No.4 to 7 under the 1965 sale deed cannot be examined in mutation proceedings, more particularly under section 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'Act'). The Deputy Commissioner has clearly acted following the mandate under Section 128 and 129 of the Act. The private respondents are asserting title based on the 1965 sale deed; therefore, the Deputy Commissioner was justified in directing the revenue officials to effect mutations strictly aligning to the conveyance reflected in the 1965 sale deed. The petitioner's right over the petition land, however, cannot be adjudicated in mutation proceedings. Therefore, the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1134 WP No. 28954 of 2024 petitioner has to be relegated to work out his remedy by filing an appropriate suit before the competent civil court. In the light of these subsequent details and observations made by this Court cited supra, the writ petition is devoid of merits and no indulgence is warranted. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 CT: BHK