- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1382 WP No. 34824 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.34824 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. BORAMMA AGED 67 YEARS W/O LATE KARAGAL BOREGOWDA, 2. SANNANANJEGOWDA AGED 75 YEARS S/O LATE NEELAGIRI NANJEGOWDA PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT DODDAYARAGANALU VILLAGE GANDASI HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573103 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRAKASH B N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE BENGALURU - 560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN - 573201 Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1382 WP No. 34824 of 2024 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN SUB - DIVISION HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201 4. THE TAHSILDAR CHENNARAYA PATTANA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573103 5. KARAGAL NINGEGOWDA S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA AGED 70 YEARS R/AT DODDAYARAGANALU VILLAGE GANDASI HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573103 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MANJUNATH K, HCGP FOR R.1 TO R.4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE UNDATED ORDER, PASSED BY THE R-2/DC IN R.P NO.135/2023-24 PRODUCED AT 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 ORAL ORDER The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner in mutating the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1382 WP No. 34824 of 2024 5th respondent's name based on the Grant Order dated 20.05.1965. 2. The 1st petitioner's contention is that her husband by name late Karagal Boregowda and respondent No.5 were jointly granted the petition land and therefore, she along with petitioner No.2 assert that the grant made in favor of respondent No.5 is on behalf of the family and they are jointly cultivating the petition land. The Revenue Authorities were not justified in only mutating the name of respondent No.5 based on the grant order. These concurrent orders are under challenge. 3. The records reveal that respondent No.5 filed an appeal by impleading one Manjegowda, whose name was reflected in the RTC and sought change of katha based on the Grant Order in his favor. The appeal was allowed and the name of Manjegowda was deleted and consequently, respondent No.5's name is mutated to the RTC. This order is challenged by the petitioners herein on the ground that - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1382 WP No. 34824 of 2024 the grant would enure to the benefit of the petitioners also. 4. The provisions under Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'KLR Act') impose a statutory duty on the Revenue Authorities to effect changes in the Record of Rights (RTC) based on the report of acquisition of rights by any individual. The scope of enquiry under these provisions is restricted to verifying whether the person claiming a right has substantiated such acquisition in accordance with the prescribed procedure. In the present case, respondent No.5 approached respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner, seeking mutation of his name in the RTC pursuant to the Grant Order issued in his favor. Upon hearing the matter, respondent No.3 allowed the appeal under Section 136(2) of the KLR Act and directed the mutation of respondent No.5's name while deleting the name of Manjegowda from the RTC. The petitioners have alleged that they are in joint cultivation of the property, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1382 WP No. 34824 of 2024 but such an assertion does not fulfill the requirements for contesting the mutation process under Sections 128 and 129 of the KLR Act. It is well-settled that disputes involving possessory rights or title over the property are outside the purview of mutation proceedings and are subject to adjudication by a competent Civil Court. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner's order remains within the limited scope of Sections 128 and 129. 5. Notwithstanding the above, the mutation of respondent No.5's name and the Grant Order do not preclude the petitioners from seeking adjudication of their claims before a competent Civil Court. The Revenue Authorities, while performing their statutory duty under Sections 128 and 129 of the KLR Act, do not determine questions of title or possession conclusively. Such issues are to be resolved by Civil Courts with appropriate jurisdiction. 6. Disputes regarding title, possession, or any rights accruing under the law, such as whether the grant - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1382 WP No. 34824 of 2024 obtained by Respondent No. 5 enures to the benefit of the petitioners as family members, fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. These courts, equipped with the authority to comprehensively examine and adjudicate such matters, are the proper forum for resolving such claims and establishing legal entitlements. 7. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the petitioners should be relegated to seek redressal of their grievances before the Civil Court. At this stage, there is no justifiable reason for this Court to interfere with the order passed by respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner, as the said order aligns with the statutory requirements under the KLR Act. Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner's direction to mutate respondent No.5's name in the RTC stands valid, subject to the outcome of any civil proceedings that the petitioners may initiate to establish their rights. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1382 WP No. 34824 of 2024 8. However, this order will not come in the way of the petitioners to seek appropriate reliefs before the competent Civil Courts. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27