1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 33724 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1 . SMT. DEVAMMA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS D/O LATE KEMPANNA 2 . SMT. PUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS D/O LATE KEMPANNA 3 . SMT. SAKAMMA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS D/O LATE KEMPANNA 4 . SMT. SAROJAMMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS W/O LATE G.K. ANJINAPPA 5 . SRI. G.K. HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O LATE KEMPANNA 6 . SRI. K. MUTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS D/O LATE KEMPANNA 2 7 . SMT. BHAGYAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS D/O LATE KEMPANNA ALL ARE RESIDING AT YELIYURU VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAMESH .T.R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPT BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001. 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DISTRICT COMPLEX BEERASANDRA VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. 3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA-561 203. 4 . THE TAHSILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK DEVANAHALLI-562 110. 5 . SMT. MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS 3 W/O CHANCHALAPPA R/AT YELIYURU VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH .K, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. ASHWATHARAYAN .S.N, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. L. NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5; SRI. SUNIL RAO, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT (IA-1/2025)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.09.2024 IN REVISION PETITION NO. 141/2024 PASSED BY THE R-2 SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE R-3 AND REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE R-3 IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY. NO. 53/4 MEASURING 1 ACRE 37 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT YELIYURU VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18.02.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM C.A.V. ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order of respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner who has set aside the order of respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner ordering to 4 mutate the name of the petitioners based on the sale deed obtained by their father Kempanna. 2. Facts leading to the case are as under: Subject-matter of this petition is an agricultural land bearing Survey No.53/4 measuring 1.37 acres situated at Yeliyuru village, Channarayapattana Hobli, Devenahalli Taluk. It is not in dispute that this property is owned by the family of respondent No.5. The impleading applicant has furnished the family tree. To have a better understanding of the lis, this Court deems it fit to cull out the family tree, which is as under: MOTAPPA (DIED) CHENNAMMA (DIED) _________________________|_____________________ | | | | CHANCHALLAPA AKKAIYAMMA MUNIAKKAIAYAMMA ERAPPA MUNIYAMMA ______________|________________ | | | | NARAYANAMMA MUNIYAPPA PILLAMMA NARAYANASWAMY @MUNIYAMMA ______________________________ | | MUNIYAMMA YASHODHAMMA _____________________|_________________________________ | | | | | | MUNIRAJA SAROJAMMA MUNILAKSHMI SUNANDA MANJULA SHIVARAJA 5 3. Petitioners are tracing title through their father Kempanna. Petitioners claim that their father Kempanna purchased this property from Respondent No.5/Muniyamma w/o. Chanchalappa and Erappa under registered sale deed 6.6.1970. The certified copy of the registered sale deed is evidenced at Annexure-B. 4. The petitioners assert that they have inherited the petition land after demise of Kempanna. Therefore, petitioners annexing the copy of the sale deed and death certificate submitted an application before respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner. Assistant Commissioner taking cognizance of the registered sale deed ordered to mutate the petitioners' name to the RTC pertaining to the petition land. 5. Respondent No.5 approached respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner assailing the order of the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-H. Respondent 6 No.2/Deputy Commissioner even without issuing notice to the present petitioners, who had the benefit of the order at the hands of respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner, allowed the revision and relegated the present petitioners to work out their remedies in pending suit bearing O.S.No.713/2008. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterating the grounds has raised two primary objections while assailing the order impugned. She would point out that respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner even without issuing notice to petitioners has allowed the revision. Therefore, the order under challenge is not sustainable. The second ground on which the order is assailed is that once an immovable property is conveyed under registered sale deed, the authorities are bound to effect change of katha strictly aligning with the conveyance indicated in the registered document. She would place reliance on the judgment rendered by the Co-Ordinate 7 Bench reported in the case of H. Channahanumaiah .vs. State of Karnataka and others1. 7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 referring to the records furnished along with the documents would vehemently argue and contend that Kempanna during his life time though reported acquisition of right under sale deed, the revenue authorities declined to mutate Kempanna's name. Placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Prakash .vs. State of Karnataka and others [WA.No.1227/2023], he would point out that petitioners are seeking change of katha almost after five decades and therefore, respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner has rightly relegated petitioners to substantiate their rights in the pending suit. He would further point out respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner has passed orders against a dead person. Referring to the 1 2013 SCC Online Kar 10294 8 records, he would point out that respondent No.3/Erappa died during the pendency of the appeal before respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner and therefore, the order of Assistant Commissioner directing the jurisdictional Tahsildar to mutate petitioners' name based on the registered sale deed is a nullity. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the impleading applicant in I.A.No.1/2025 has strongly contended that his client, being a lineal descendant of Smt. Akkayyamma, is a necessary party to the present petition and must be heard in the matter. He further asserts that the impleading applicant has a legitimate share in the property through his mother, Yashodamma, and represents the family of Akkayyamma. Additionally, he emphasizes that the mutation in favor of the petitioners would have a direct bearing on the pending suit. Therefore, he earnestly requests this Court to allow the impleading applicant to be 9 added as a party to the proceedings and contest the petition. 9. After hearing the extensive arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the following points arise for determination: 1. Whether the order passed by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner, as per Annexure-H, is rendered a nullity due to the demise of Erappa? 2. Whether respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner was justified in directing the mutation of the petitioners' names by recognizing the registered sale deed dated 06.06.1970, executed in favor of the petitioners' father, Kempanna, by respondent No.5 and Erappa? 3. Whether the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner violates the principles of natural justice and the procedural requirements under Section 129 of the Act, thereby warranting its annulment? 4. Whether the impleading applicant is a necessary party to these proceedings? 10 Finding on Point No.1: 10. This Court finds that the issue does not warrant much deliberation, given the grounds raised by respondent No.5 in the revision petition filed under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short "KLR Act") before respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner. In this regard, it is pertinent to extract paragraph 9 of the revision petition, which reads as follows: "9. It is submitted that said Earappa was unmarried and died intestate. Hence Smt. Muniyamma W/O Late Chanchulappa filed an application to the 2nd Respondent, i.e., the Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk seeking for effecting mutation in respect of the entire Schedule Property in her name as she is the only survivor of the family. Bu the 2nd Respondent, the Tahsildar, vide his order dated 12.11.2019 in RRT.CR.187/2019-20 rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The copy of the Order dated 12.11.2019 in RRT.CR.187/2019-20 is herewith submitted as Annexure-E." 11 11. Upon perusal of the extracted paragraph from the revision petition and a thorough consideration of the submissions made, this Court finds that the contention raised by respondent No.5 that the order passed by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner is a nullity due to its issuance against a deceased person is wholly misconceived and contrary to the facts of the case. 12. A meticulous examination of the family tree reveals that respondent No.5, being the widow of Chanchalappa, the elder son, along with Erappa, executed a registered sale deed in favor of the petitioners' father, Kempanna, transferring ownership of the petition property. Furthermore, in paragraph 9 of the revision petition, respondent No.5 has unequivocally stated that Erappa was unmarried and passed away intestate. This admission is of significant relevance, as it establishes that upon Erappa’s 12 demise, the question of succession does not arise in his favor, and his rights, if any, stood extinguished. 13. In light of these facts, it is evident that the Assistant Commissioner's order was passed in recognition of a validly executed sale deed and was not predicated on any rights arising from Erappa’s estate. Therefore, the mere fact of Erappa’s death does not vitiate or nullify the order. Accordingly, the contention of respondent No.5 that the order is a nullity lacks merit and is rejected. Consequently, Point No.1 is answered in the negative. FINDING ON POINT No.2: 14. Respondent No.5 before this Court has filed detailed objections. Paras 5 and 6 of the statement of objections would be relevant and the same are extracted, which read as under: "5. The respondent No.5 submit that the property belong to chinnamma as on the date of the sale deed dated 05.06.1970 chinamma was alive and she is not the executant 13 in the sale deed, wherein Muniyamma and Errappa stated as executants. 6. The respondent No.5 submit that despite execution of sale deed possession remained with Erappa's foster daughter Narayanamma D/o Muniyamma and Chanchalappa Katha remained in name of Muniyamma and Errappa. " 15. Upon examining paragraph 6 of the statement of objections, it becomes evident that respondent No.5 has admitted the execution of the sale deed. However, respondent No.5 contends that despite the sale, possession of the property remained with Erappa’s foster daughter, Narayanamma, who is the daughter of Muniyamma. Furthermore, respondent No.5 asserts that the revenue records continued to reflect the names of Muniyamma and Erappa, indicating that the mutation was never effected in favor of the petitioners' father. 16. To address this contention, it is essential to analyze the legal framework governing the mutation of land 14 records. Section 128 of the KLR Act, mandates that any change in ownership or title must be reported to the concerned revenue authorities. Such changes may occur through various modes, including inheritance, family arrangements, partition, or registered conveyance. The provision distinguishes between cases where the acquisition of rights is reported by the parties themselves and cases where the registration authorities under the Registration Act are obligated to report such acquisitions. In instances where property rights are acquired through a registered sale deed, the onus of reporting the transaction does not fall upon the purchaser or transferee. Instead, the responsibility lies with the Sub-Registrar, who is duty- bound to notify the revenue authorities regarding the transaction. 17. In light of this statutory requirement, the delay in submitting an application for mutation is of no consequence, especially in cases where the execution of the 15 sale deed is not in dispute, and the only contention pertains to possession. The encumbrance certificate produced at Annexure-C, covering the period from 1959 to 2004, unequivocally records the conveyance of the property by respondent No.5 and Erappa in favor of the petitioners’ father, Kempanna. This document substantiates the fact that the registered sale deed was a valid instrument effecting the transfer of ownership. Consequently, where a transfer of property occurs through a registered sale deed, there is no legal obligation on the transferee to independently report the transaction to the revenue authorities. The duty to notify the prescribed authority under Section 128 of the KLR Act squarely falls on the registering authority. Therefore, the contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.5 that the mutation application was belated and that the Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal is legally unsound and misconceived. 16 18. Furthermore, respondent No.5 has relied on an earlier rejection order, which was furnished along with the memo of documents dated 18.02.2025. However, this rejection holds no significance in the present case. The Assistant Commissioner, while exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 136(2) of the KLR Act, has rightfully ordered the mutation in favor of the petitioners based on the registered sale deed. 19. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is in strict compliance with the statutory mandate enshrined in Sections 128 and 129 of the KLR Act. When the acquisition of rights over immovable property is effectuated through a registered document, the authorities have no discretionary power to refuse the mutation. Once such a transaction is duly reported, the concerned revenue officers are bound to effect changes in the land records as per the registered sale deed. 17 20. This Court has consistently held in a series of judgments that revenue authorities are under an obligation to implement changes in ownership records when the acquisition of rights is based on a registered document. In the present case, respondent No.5’s assertion that possession remains with the family members, particularly Erappa’s foster daughter, Narayanamma, does not in any manner affect the validity of the mutation proceedings. The question of possession is distinct from the question of ownership and does not constitute a valid ground to refuse mutation. As such, respondent No.5 and Narayanamma have no locus standi to contest the mutation process. 21. A careful examination of the documents submitted by the impleading applicant further reveals that respondent No.5 has never challenged the sale deed in question. Similarly, Erappa, during his lifetime, never sought to dispute or invalidate the sale deed executed in favor of Kempanna. Notably, even Akkayyamma, the 18 grandmother of the impleading applicant, never initiated any legal action to challenge the validity of the sale transaction undertaken by Erappa and respondent No.5. Furthermore, in the present suit filed by one Narayanaswamy, there is no plea challenging the sale deed executed in favor of the petitioners' father. These facts reinforce the legality and authenticity of the registered sale deed and establish that its validity has remained undisputed for decades. 22. In view of the above-discussed facts and legal principles, this Court finds that the order passed by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner is in full compliance with the statutory provisions of Sections 128 and 129 of the Act. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered in the affirmative. 19 Finding on Point No.3: 23. The records placed before this Court unequivocally indicate that the Deputy Commissioner reversed the order of the Assistant Commissioner without issuing notice to the petitioners. This action is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The fundamental tenets of natural justice dictate that no party should suffer an adverse decision without being given an opportunity to be heard. The three essential principles of natural justice are: (i) providing adequate notice to the affected party, (ii) ensuring a fair hearing, and (iii) preventing bias in decision-making. In the instant case, the Deputy Commissioner failed to adhere to these basic principles, thereby rendering the impugned order legally unsustainable. Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered in the affirmative. 20 Finding on Point No.4: 24. The impleading applicant asserts that he is the son of Yashodamma and the grandson of Akkayyamma. However, the records establish that the widow of Chanchalappa, along with Erappa, executed the sale deed dated 06.06.1970 in favour of Kempanna. Notably, the impleading applicant’s grandmother, Akkayyamma, never raised any challenge against this sale transaction during her lifetime. Moreover, neither Erappa nor Muniyamma, who was the widow of Chanchalappa, ever disputed the validity of the sale deed. Given these facts, the impleading applicant, who has not instituted any independent suit challenging the transaction, must seek his remedies, if any, in the pending suit, where a counterclaim has already been filed. 25. It is also pertinent to note that the primary issue in the present proceedings pertains to the mutation of the 21 petitioners' names in the RTC records based on the registered sale deed of 1970. The impleading applicant does not play a necessary role in adjudicating this issue. The determination of whether the petitioners are entitled to mutation is a matter of documentary evidence, primarily based on the sale deed, and does not require the impleading applicant's participation. Even if the mutation is effected in favor of the petitioners, it remains subject to the final outcome of the pending suit in O.S.No.649/2023. 26. In view of these considerations, this Court finds no justifiable ground to allow the impleading application. Accordingly, Point No.4 is answered in the negative and the impleading application filed in I.A.No.1/2025 is dismissed. 27. For the foregoing reasons this Court proceeds to pass the following: 22 ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 9.9.2024 in Revision Petition No.141/2024 passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner is hereby set aside. Consequently, the order dated 6.3.2024 passed by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner is restored. (iii) The restoration of the petitioners' names will be subject to the outcome of the pending suit in O.S.No.649/2023. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB