- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13228 WP No. 26513 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 26513 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SRIDEVI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O. LATE C. M. NARAYANASWAMY, CHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KEMPANGANAHALLI POST, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 114. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DAYANANDA K G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. K. R. KESHAVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O. MR. K. RAMA REDDY, R/AT NO. 24, 1ST A CROSS, 5TH MAIN, DOMLUR II STAGE, BANGALORE-560 071. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-562 110. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13228 WP No. 26513 of 2023 DODDABALLAPURA, BANGALORE-561 293. 4. THE TAHSILDAR HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-562 114. 5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 6. SRI. ANNAYAPPA., AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, CHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560 067. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.R.SADASHIVA REDDY., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR RAHUL.S.REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1; SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-2 TO R-5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26/10/2023 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN REVISION PETITION NO. 146/2023 CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 02/08/2023 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPUR IN R.A. (HO) NO. 438/2022-23 VIDE ANNEXURE-B, ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13228 WP No. 26513 of 2023 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. The facts as could be ascertained from the order of the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner are as follows: 2. Chowdamma was the original owner of the land bearing Sy.No.70 measuring 4 acres. In the year 1956, Chowdamma executed a Registered Sale Deed in favour of Muni Nagappa. 3. On 28.04.1966, Chowdamma sold the remaining 2 acres in favour of Kempanna. 4. Muninagappa executed a Registered Gift Deed in favour of his daughter in law Pillanagamma on 02.06.1960. Pillanagamma in turn sold these two acres to Munirathnamma and Munirathnamma sold - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13228 WP No. 26513 of 2023 the two acres in favor of the contesting respondent Keshava Reddy on 28.02.2006. 5. As far as the 2 acres that was sold to Kempanna is concerned, Kempanna sold the said 2 acres in favor of Muniyappa under the Registered Sale Deed dated 17.10.1970. The petitioner herein i.e., Smt.Sridevi is the daughter in law of Muniyappa and claims her title through this Sale Deed of Muniyappa. 6. Muniyappa sold this extent of 2 acres by executing 2 Sale Deeds, 1 acre each to Annayappa and Shivarudrappa on 29.06.1978. Thus, Muniyappa sold the entire extent of 2 acres that he had purchased. 7. On 07.05.2004, Shivarudrappa sold 1 acre to Chinnappa and Chinnappa in turn executed a Sale Deed in favor of the contesting respondent Keshava Reddy on 21.04.2006. 8. Annayappa who had purchased 1 acre from Muniyappa, sold the 1 acre that he had purchased to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13228 WP No. 26513 of 2023 the contesting respondent Keshava Reddy on 09.09.2005. 9. Thus, the entire extent that was owned by Chowdamma is accounted for. However, despite this fact, the name of Muniyappa's son C. M. Narayanaswamy was entered in the revenue records in respect of 2 acres vide M.R.No.39/2004-05 on the basis of the revenue entries. On the death of C.M.Narayanaswamy, again, by way of inheritance, the revenue entries were mutated in favor of the petitioner Sridevi vide M.R.No.24/2008-09. 10. Thus, it is clear that both the petitioner Sridevi and her husband C. M. Narayanaswami claim that they have inherited the property from Muniyappa. If Muniyappa, who had purchased 2 acres from Kempanna had sold the entire extent of 2 acres in favour of Annayappa and Shivarudrappa under two separate Sale Deeds, the question of any property being retained by Muniyappa would not arise. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13228 WP No. 26513 of 2023 11. Consequently, the entry of C. M. Narayanaswamy's name i.e., Muniyappa's son or the name of Sridevi i.e., Muniyappa's daughter in law would not arise. The Deputy Commissioner has noticed this flow of title and has come to the conclusion that there is no justification for continuing the entry in favor of Sridevi and has affirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, who had allowed the appeal and ordered the name of Sridevi to set aside. I find no justification to interfere with this order. 12. However, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner has in fact filed a suit in O.S.No.1945/2022 of the land bearing Sy.No.70 (new Sy.No.144) and, therefore, the revenue entries cannot be mutated until the suit filed by the contesting respondent Keshava Reddy is decided. 13. This argument of the petitioner cannot be accepted since fundamentally the revenue entries should reflect the person who had purchased the property - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13228 WP No. 26513 of 2023 under the registered instrument. Since the petitioner claims that she had succeeded to the property of Muniyappa and Muniyappa had purchased only 2 acres under the Registered Sale Deed dated 17.10.1970, which he has admittedly sold, the petitioner cannot claim that Muniyappa was the owner of the entire 4 acres and, the portion retained by him has been muted in favor of the petitioner and her husband earlier. 14. If it is the case of the petitioner that Muniyappa had in fact purchased 4 acres and not 2 acres, the appropriate remedy would be for the petitioner to file an appropriate suit, get a declaration that her father in law had purchased 4 acres and not 2 acres and, if such a decree is obtained, it is needless to state that the revenue entries would be accordingly mutated. 15. Consequently, I find no reason to entertain this writ petition, this petition is thus dismissed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13228 WP No. 26513 of 2023 16. 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