- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1704 WP No. 33389 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.33389 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.HANUMAKKA C/O RANGARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NAYAKANAPALYA OORDIGERE HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK NO.4, LAKSHMIPURA THATHAGUNI POST KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560062 2. NANJAMMA C/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT DODDASAGARA HOLAVANAHALLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572129 3. RAMAIAH S/O JATANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT DODDASAGARA HOLAVANAHALLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT- 572 129 Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1704 WP No. 33389 of 2024 4. NAGARATHNA C/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT DODDASAGARA HOLAVANAHALLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572129 5. HANUMAIAH S/O LATE JATANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 6. RAMAKKA W/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 7. KRISHNAIAH S/O JATANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.5 TO 7 ARE R/AT S.GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE KOLALA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 572129 8. LAKSHMAIAH S/O JATANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT DODDABOMMASANDRA YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 560022 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.SRIKANTH N V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR - 572 132 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1704 WP No. 33389 of 2024 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADHUGIRI SUB DIVISION MADHUGIRI - 572 129 3. REVENUE INSPECTOR KOLALA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 129 4. MUDDEGOWDA S/O LATE ANNAYAPPA AGED MAJOR 5. RAJAMMA W/O RAJANNA AGED MAJOR 6. THIMMEGOWDA S/O LATE ANNAYAPPA AGED MAJOR RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 6 ARE R/AT S.GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE KOLALA HOBLI KORATAGER TLAUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 129 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R.1 TO 3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER 10.06.2024 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN R.P.NO.146/2021 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1704 WP No. 33389 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The petitioners are aggrieved by the mutation certified by the Revenue Authorities thereby mutating the name of one Govindappa, who is the ancestor of private respondent Nos.4 to 6. The Authorities have declined to grant any indulgence having taken cognizance of the fact that Govindappa has acquired title based on 1949 sale deed. 2. The petitioners contend that their ancestors namely Hanumaiah and Deviramma, who are the owners to an extent of 5 acres 5 guntas, have only alienated 2 acres in favour of one Annayappa under registered sale deed dated 01.08.1949. 3. The petitioners are contesting the legitimacy of the sale deed executed in favor of Govindappa. The Revenue Authorities, while reviewing the case, have referred to the sale deed dating back to 1949, upon which the rights of Govindappa were established. Despite this - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1704 WP No. 33389 of 2024 historical record, the Revenue Authorities have declined to grant any form of indulgence or relief to the petitioners. The sale deed of 1949 serves as a foundational document, and the authorities are bound by this established record. 4. Based on the aforementioned sale deed, the Revenue Authorities carried out the mutation process, resulting in the official entry of Govindappa’s name in the Record of Rights (RTC) for a land parcel measuring 2 acres. This entry was made in line with the legal procedures that require a certification of mutation when a change of title or right is reported. The petitioners, by questioning this sale deed, are effectively disputing the legal ownership and rights that were granted to Govindappa in 1949. However, it must be noted that during the mutation proceedings, the Revenue Authorities do not possess the jurisdiction or authority to question or examine the validity of the underlying sale deed. The scope of inquiry under Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue (KLR) Act is inherently limited - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1704 WP No. 33389 of 2024 and confined to the task of recording ownership changes, not validating or invalidating deeds. 5. The Revenue Authorities have a statutory duty to effect necessary changes to the RTC whenever a change in ownership or rights is reported, irrespective of the time of acquisition. In this case, Govindappa’s name, although acquired in 1949, was only mutated into the RTC in 2019, long after the initial transfer of title. The delay in updating the RTC does not undermine the validity of Govindappa’s ownership, which has been recognized and certified based on the 1949 sale deed. The petitioners’ argument, which claims that Deveeramma’s name was previously recorded in the RTC, excluding the 2-acre parcel sold to Hanumaiah, cannot form the basis for challenging the actions of the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner. Their actions, being in line with established law and procedures, do not warrant interference or reconsideration. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1704 WP No. 33389 of 2024 6. Should the petitioners wish to dispute the sale deed executed in 1949 between Govindappa and the original seller, they must seek appropriate legal recourse through the competent Civil Court. The validity of the sale deed, which has been in effect for several decades, is a matter that can only be adjudicated by the Civil Court, not through the Revenue Authorities’ mutation process. The inquiry into the authenticity of a sale deed, particularly one that dates back to 1949, falls outside the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities under Sections 128 and 129 of the KLR Act. Therefore, the petitioners’ attempt to challenge the sale deed through the mutation process is legally untenable. The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23