- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5367 WP No. 25900 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 25900 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. VENKATA REDDY, S/O LATE KONDAIAH @ KONDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT B. HOSALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU 562 125. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH T. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 5TH FLOOR, M S BUILDINGS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K G ROAD, BENGALURU 560 009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVANA, K. G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5367 WP No. 25900 of 2023 4. THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, TALUK OFFICE COMPOUND, ANEKAL - 560 106. BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. 5. SRI C. YELLA REDDY S/O C. CHIKKANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT NO.372, SANVI NILAYA, 15TH CROSS, 17TH 'C' MAIN, IV SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4, SRI. KALYAN R., ADV. FOR R5.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 26/06/2023 PASSED BY THE R4, TAHSILDAR AS PER ANNEXURE-C, ORDER DATED 20/02/2023 PASSED BY THE R3, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION IN CASE NO. RA(A).399/2015-16 WHERE UNDER THE R3, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DIRECTED THE R4, TAHSILDAR TO TRANSFER THE MUTATION AND THE ENTRIES IN THE RTC AS PER ANNEXURE-B, AND THE ORDER DATED 15/11/2023 PASSED BY THE R2 IN CASE NO. RP 314/2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5367 WP No. 25900 of 2023 ORAL ORDER Petitioner is assailing the orders of third respondent – Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub Division, Bangalore dated 20.02.2023 passed in R.A(A):399/2015-16 and second respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District dated 15.11.2023 passed in RP 314/2023 wherein the authorities have entertained the appeal filed by fifth respondent and directed the revenue authorities to mutate fifth respondent’s name based on sale deed dated 28.03.1938 vide Annexure-D. The said concurrent orders passed by third respondent-Assistant Commissioner and second respondent-Deputy Commissioner are assailed before this Court. 2. Upon a meticulous examination of the relevant records, particularly the akarband and survey sketch/phodi, it becomes evident that the land originally bearing Sy.No.129 in B. Hosahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District, encompassed a total extent of 5 acres 10 guntas. The ownership of this land was divided between two distinct sets of individuals. One portion, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5367 WP No. 25900 of 2023 measuring 2 acres 28 guntas, was jointly owned by Kodiga, Venkata, and Munivenkata. The remaining extent, measuring 2 acres 22 guntas, was held by Kotekondaiah. The present dispute revolves around the competing claims of the petitioner and the fifth respondent, each of whom traces their title through these original owners. The petitioner derives title from Kotekondaiah, who was the rightful owner of 2 acres 22 guntas, while the fifth respondent claims ownership through his ancestor, Urabagila Nagappa, who had acquired 2 acres 28 guntas from Kodiga, Venkata, and Munivenkata. 3. Upon a closer scrutiny of the title documents, especially the sale deed dated 28.03.1938 (Annexure-D) executed in favor of the fifth respondent's ancestor, Urabagila Nagappa, it is unambiguously established that he had purchased only 2 acres 28 guntas. Following this transaction, phodi proceedings were conducted, and the portion acquired by Urabagila Nagappa was assigned a new subdivision number, designated as Sy.No.129/1. Simultaneously, the property that continued to be owned by - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5367 WP No. 25900 of 2023 Kotekondaiah was assigned Sy.No.129/2. The sale deed dated 28.03.1938 distinctly describes the eastern portion of the land as belonging to Kotekondaiah, measuring 2 acres 22 guntas. Further corroboration is found in the sale deed dated 11.02.1942 (Annexure-F), through which Kotekondaiah transferred ownership of the said portion to the petitioner's ancestor, Veerappa Reddy. This document also establishes that the western portion of the property belonged to Urabagila Nagappa. The phodi proceedings and akarband records reaffirm this division, where the western portion measuring 2 acres 28 guntas was designated as Sy.No.129/1, while the eastern portion measuring 2 acres 22 guntas was recorded as Sy.No.129/2 under the ownership of the petitioner's ancestor. 4. A peculiar discrepancy arises in the records concerning the reference to Sy.No.129/2. The sale deed dated 11.02.1942, executed in favor of the petitioner's ancestor, reflects the correct survey number for the purchased land. However, in an anomalous manner, even though the fifth respondent's ancestor had acquired only 2 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5367 WP No. 25900 of 2023 acres 28 guntas, he repeatedly referred to his property as Sy.No.129/2 in subsequent transactions. This inconsistency is further evidenced in the sale deed dated 10.07.1961 (Annexure-K), wherein Urabagila Nagappa, who was in possession of 2 acres 28 guntas, sold this portion to one Chikanna. Despite his ownership being restricted to Sy.No.129/1, the sale deed inaccurately references Sy.No.129/2. Such misrepresentation appears to have been strategically leveraged by the fifth respondent to advance his claim. 5. Without challenging the mutation entries in favor of Veerappa Reddy concerning Sy.No.129/2, the fifth respondent proceeded to file an appeal before the third respondent, the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner, in an apparent oversight, relied upon the sale deed dated 28.03.1938 and directed the mutation of the fifth respondent's name in Sy.No.129/2, overlooking the fact that Urabagila Nagappa’s brother had already alienated the property measuring 2 acres 28 guntas to Chikanna under the registered sale deed dated 10.07.1961. This critical aspect - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5367 WP No. 25900 of 2023 was disregarded in the Assistant Commissioner's order, which is now impugned in these proceedings (Annexure-B). It appears that the fifth respondent has taken undue advantage of the misrepresentation in the earlier sale deeds to effectuate an erroneous mutation entry in his favor, thereby unjustly encroaching upon the petitioner's rightful claim to Sy.No.129/2. 6. Veerappa Reddy’s name is reflected in the records pertaining to survey No.129/2 and after his demise who died issueless, the present petitioner who claims to be his nephew, in the family partition with the consent of other owners, got his name mutated which is evidenced vide Annexure-H. 7. The learned counsel representing the fifth respondent has sought to persuade this Court by emphasizing that a comprehensive civil suit, bearing O.S.No.314/2016, is currently pending adjudication. The primary relief sought in the said suit pertains to partition. While both sale deeds, namely the one dated 28.03.1938 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5367 WP No. 25900 of 2023 and the one dated 11.02.1942, have been challenged in the suit, it is pertinent to note that the sale deed dated 11.02.1942, which was obtained by Veerappa Reddy an ancestor of the petitioner is not directly the subject matter of the partition proceedings. Furthermore, though the petitioners have been impleaded as defendants in the partition suit, there is no specific challenge raised by the Respondent no.5 or their ancestor concerning the said sale deed, as is evident from the documents produced at Annexure-F. At this juncture, it would not be appropriate for this Court to delve into any further observations on the pending partition suit, and this Court shall therefore refrain from making any comments that could prejudice the outcome of those proceedings. 8. Upon a meticulous examination of the records, particularly the title deeds placed before this Court, certain crucial aspects come to the fore. The sale deed obtained by the fifth respondent’s ancestor, as evidenced at Annexure-D, and the sale deed acquired by the petitioner’s ancestor, Kotekondaiah, as evidenced at Annexure-F, establish a clear - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5367 WP No. 25900 of 2023 chain of title. In light of these documents, this Court is of the unequivocal opinion that the revenue authorities lacked the requisite jurisdiction and competence to unilaterally mutate the name of the fifth respondent merely on the basis of the sale deed dated 28.03.1938. It is crucial to note that unless the fifth respondent takes appropriate legal steps to challenge the prior mutations specifically, the mutation of Veerappa Reddy’s name in the revenue records and the subsequent mutation reflecting the petitioner’s name, as seen in Annexure-H, the appeal filed before the third respondent is rendered fundamentally void and unsustainable in law. Additionally, it is well-settled that when complex questions of title arise, they cannot be conclusively determined within the limited scope of mutation proceedings under Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The mutation process is primarily administrative in nature and does not confer or divest title, which can only be adjudicated by a competent civil court. The revenue authorities ought to have exercised due diligence and refrained from entertaining the appeal filed by the fifth - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5367 WP No. 25900 of 2023 respondent, particularly in the absence of any challenge to the prior mutations. Given the circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to grant relief in favor of the petitioner, as any interference with the existing revenue entries without proper adjudication of title would be legally unsustainable 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. Writ petition allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 20.06.2023 passed by fourth respondent-Tahasildar, *Anekal Taluk, vide Annexure-C, order dated 20.02.2023 passed by third respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub Division, Bangalore vide Annexure-B and the order dated 15.11.2023 passed by second respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District vide Annexure-A are hereby quashed and set aside. * Corrected vide chamber order dated 6.3.2025 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:5367 WP No. 25900 of 2023 iii. Fourth respondent-Tahasildar, *Anekal Taluk shall forthwith restore the name of petitioner to the RTC pertaining to Sy.No.129/2 . iv. It is needless to mention that the restoration of petitioner’s name to the petition land bearing Sy.No.129/2 will be subject to the outcome of pending partition suit in O.S.No.314/2016. v. The impleading application filed by Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 * Corrected vide chamber order dated 6.3.2025