- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14307 WP No. 25497 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 25497 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI K.M. RAVINDRA S/O LATE B.K MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. SMT. SATHYAVATHI, D/O LATE B.K MUNIYAPPA, W/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED 3. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA D/O LATE B.K MUNIYAPPA, W/O MUNIHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED 4. SMT. M. PREMA D/O LATE B.K MUNIYAPPA, W/O D. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 5. SMT. K.M SUGUNA D/O LATE B.K MUNIYAPPA, W/O M.SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT KUMBENA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14307 WP No. 25497 of 2023 ERSTWHILE HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 067. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJESH GOWDA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE TASHILDHAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 036. 4. SRI. ASHOK N SINCE DEAD BY LR'S SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O LATE ASHOK N, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 5. SMT. POOJA A D/O LATE ASHOK N, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 6. SRI. PUNITH A S/O LATE ASHOK N, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 7. SRI. RAMESH S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14307 WP No. 25497 of 2023 RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT KUMBARPET, KASABA HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3, SRI. A V GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4 TO R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14/12/2022, IN RA(BE) 217/2020, PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION AT BANGALORE, VIDE ANNEXURE-B, AND CONSEQUENTLY TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14/12/2022, IN RA(BE) 217/202, PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION AT BANGALORE, VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. Respondent Ashok, the predecessor in title of respondent Nos.4 to 7 has preferred an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Assistant Commissioner - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14307 WP No. 25497 of 2023 challenging an order of mutation made in M.R.T1/2017- 18, contending that his father Nanjappa had purchased the land bearing Sy.No.35/1 measuring 26 guntas under the Registered Sale Deed dated 20.12.1985 and his name had not been entered in the revenue records and, on the other hand, B.K.Muniyappa's legal representative had obtained an order of mutation on the basis of inheritance, which was obviously illegal. 2. The Assistant Commissioner accepted the said plea and set aside the order of mutation made in favour of the legal heirs of B.K.Muniyappa principally on the ground that B.K.Muniyappa having sold the property under the Registered Sale Deed dated 20.12.1985, the legal representatives of B.K.Muniyappa could not have sought for mutation of entries in their favour on the basis of inheritance. 3. This order of the Assistant Commissioner was carried to the Deputy Commissioner by way of a revision under Section 136(3) of the Act. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14307 WP No. 25497 of 2023 4. However, the Deputy Commissioner concurred with the view taken by the Assistant Commissioner and dismissed the revision. As a consequence, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. Sri.Rajesh Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitionerd contends that the order of the Assistant Commissioner was unsustainable since there was admittedly a huge delay in filing the appeal and, as there was no application filed for condonation of delay, the decision rendered by the Assistant Commissioner on merits would not be sustained. 6. He also sought to contend that the legal representatives of Ashok have also instituted a suit in O.S.No.26/2021 seeking for a declaration that they were the owners of the property in question and also for a declaration that the joint development agreement entered into by B.K.Muniyappa was illegal and not binding on them. 7. He submitted that, in the light of this suit, the legal representatives of Nanjappa i.e., Ashok and his legal representatives cannot claim their names to be entered in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14307 WP No. 25497 of 2023 the revenue records until a decree was granted in their favour. 8. In my view, both these arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners cannot be accepted. 9. It is not in dispute that there does exist a Sale Deed dated 20.12.1985, whereby B.K.Muniyappa is stated to have sold the property in favour of Nanjappa. Admittedly, this Sale Deed has not been challenged by either B.K.Muniyappa or his legal heirs. So long as there is a Registered Sale Deed under which the registered khatedar has conveyed the property to another person, the Revenue Authorities are bound to give effect to the Sale Deed and mutated the entries accordingly. 10. In this case, admittedly, the name of Muniyappa was registered as the Khatedar in the RTC and since he had executed a Sale Deed on 20.12.1985, the Revenue Authorities were bound to transfer the khata in favour of the purchaser i.e., Nanjappa. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14307 WP No. 25497 of 2023 11. The Assistant Commissioner has merely accepted this principle and directed the mutation to be effected in accordance with the Sale Deed. 12. The Assistant Commissioner was also right when he stated that B.K.Muniyappa's legal representatives could not have sought for their names to be entered in the revenue records on the basis of inheritance, basically, because Muniyappa himself had no title over the said property and, therefore, there is no question of them inheriting any title. 13. In my view, therefore, the order of the Assistant Commissioner and, its confirmation by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be found fault with. 14. As far as the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that there was no application for condonation of delay and, therefore, the appeal was incompetent and, the decision rendered was also incompetent is concerned, it is to be stated here that the period of limitation would start from the date of knowledge and a perusal of the appeal memo would - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14307 WP No. 25497 of 2023 indicate that the appellants came to know about the illegal mutation in favour of the legal representatives of Muniyappa and they have immediately taken steps to prefer an appeal. Consequently, this argument was rejected. 15. As far as the other argument that a suit for declaration has been filed and, hence, the name of the legal representatives of Nanjappa cannot be entered until the suit is decreed is concerned, it is to be stated here that the suit is based on the Registered Sale Deed. So long as there is a Registered Sale Deed, the Revenue Authorities are bound to give effect to the same. 16. It is also to be noticed here that even if the suit filed by the legal representatives of Nanjappa is dismissed, the name of the petitioners cannot be entered on the ground that they have title. So long as the Sale Deed executed by Muniyappa remains unchallenged or declared to be invalid by the Civil Court, the Revenue Authorities are bound to give effect to the Sale Deed and mutate the names in accordance with the Sale Deed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14307 WP No. 25497 of 2023 17. In find no reason to entertain this writ petition. This writ petition is therefore dismissed. 18. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1