- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35030-DB WA No. 651 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 651 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI K M RAVINDRA, S/O LATE B.K MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 2. SMT. SATHYAVATHI, D/O LATE B.K MUNIYAPPA, W/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. 3. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA, D/O LATE B.K MUNIYAPPA, W/O MUNIHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 4. SMT. M. PREMA, D/O LATE B.K MUNIYAPPA, W/O D. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 5. SMT. K.M SUGUNA, D/O LATE B.K MUNIYAPPA, W/O M. SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT KUMBENA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, ERSTWHILE HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE-560 067. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI RAJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35030-DB WA No. 651 of 2025 AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE TASHILDHAR, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 036. 4. SRI ASHOK.N, SINCE DEAD BY LR'S. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA, W/O LATE ASHOK.N, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 5. SMT. POOJA. A D/O LATE ASHOK. N, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. 6. SRI. PUNITH. A, S/O LATE ASHOK. N, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. 7. SRI RAMESH, S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO. 4 TO 7 ARE R/AT KUMBARPET, KASABA HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S HARISH, GA) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35030-DB WA No. 651 of 2025 03.04.2025 PASSED IN WP No-25497/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WP BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL OR PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER/S WHICH THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) 1. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of Writ Petition No.25497/2023 dated 03.04.2025 by learned Single Judge, the writ petitioners are before this Court in this intra court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. 2. The factual matrix that is relevant is as below: (a) Appellants represent one B.K. Muniyappa, who was the erstwhile owner of Survey No.35/1, measuring 26 Guntas, situated at Kumbena Agrahara Village, Bidarahalli-1 Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk [subject property]. He, along with his son K.M.Ravindra [appellant No.1 herein] had sold the said property in favour of one Nanjappa under a registered Sale Deed dated 20.12.1985. Respondent Nos.4 to 7 represent the said Nanjappa. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35030-DB WA No. 651 of 2025 (b) The said conveyance of the subject property was not entered in the revenue records, but name of B.K. Muniyappa continued in the records. After demise of B.K. Muniyappa, appellants obtained an order of mutation on the basis of the inheritance. (c) Respondent Nos.4 to 7 who are representing the said Nanjappa came to know about the same and they approached the Assistant Commissioner [respondent No. 2] in an appeal [RA No. 217/2021] and contended that after the said B.K. Muniyappa had sold the subject property under the registered Sale Deed dated 20.12.1985, the name of the purchaser was not entered in the revenue records and the same requires to be entered. (d) The Assistant Commissioner passed an order on 14.12.2022 directing to enter the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in the revenue records. (e) Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants herein approached the Deputy Commissioner [respondent No.1] under Section 136 (6) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, in revision and the Deputy Commissioner in RP No. 511 of 2012, rejected the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35030-DB WA No. 651 of 2025 same and confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner [respondent No. 2]. (f) Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner rejecting the revision, the appellants have approached this Court in Writ Petition No.25497/2023. 3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition and impugning the order of such dismissal, the appellants are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the delay of 35 years in filing the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner and even an application for condonation of delay was also not filed by the respondants. It is further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge overlooks the fact that a Civil Suit in OS No.26/2021 had been filed by respondents 4 to 7 seeking a declaration of title and therefore, until the declaration of the title is adjudicated, the learned Single Judge could not have upheld the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. He submits that the validity of the title of respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein is in question before the Civil Court and therefore, the direction to enter the names of the respondent - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35030-DB WA No. 651 of 2025 Nos.4 to 7 on the basis of the alleged sale deed executed by B.K.Muniyappa in favour of Nanjappa could not have sustained. 5. The only aspect that needs to be considered is, whether the name of B.K. Muniyappa and after his demise, the names of the appellants herein could have been continued in the revenue records. 6. It is pertinent to note that soon after the execution of the registered Sale Deed dated 20.12.1985 by B.K.Muniyappa, in favour of Nanjappa, it was incumbent upon the revenue authorities to mutate the name of the purchaser in the revenue records. The reason as to why the name of the purchaser was not entered in the revenue records soon after the sale is not forthcoming. Therefore, the name of Nanjappa, who is now represented by respondent Nos. 4 to 7 should have been entered in the revenue records on the basis of 'J Slip' (under Rule 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules 1966) that should have been sent to the revenue authorities from the concerned Sub Registrar. There was no necessity for the purchaser Nanjappa to approach the revenue authorities seeking entry of his name when he purchased the property under a registered sale deed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35030-DB WA No. 651 of 2025 7. Therefore, the order of respondent No.2 [the Assistant Commissioner] directing that the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 7, who are representing Nanjappa be entered in the records, cannot be faulted. 8. It is pertinent to note that the filing of the suit in OS No.26/2021 by respondent Nos.4 to 7, seeking a declaration and injunction is arising out of a separate cause of action. Even if a title holder faces a challenge to his title, he is at liberty to approach the Civil Court seeking declaration of his title. A mere cloud to his title would be sufficient enough to seek such relief. Therefore, filing of the suit in OS No. 26/2021 cannot be a ground to say that the Sale Deed dated 20.12.1985 could not be acted upon by entering the name of the purchasers in the revenue records. 9. It is apposite to note that the Sale Deed executed by B.K. Muniyappa in favour of Nanjappa on 20.12.1985 is not challenged by the appellants herein. Therefore, when a registered conveyance deed is pressed into service by respondent Nos. 4 to 7 seeking entry of their name in the revenue records, the same could not be rejected. Admittedly, B.K. Muniyappa was the holder of the title at the time of execution of the sale deed and therefore, the act of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35030-DB WA No. 651 of 2025 revenue authorities in entering the name of Nanjappa cannot be faulted. 10. Insofar as the delay in filing the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner is concerned, it is to be noted that the limitation would start from the date of knowledge. Respondent Nos.4 to 7 have categorically mentioned in their petition filed before respondent No. 2 [Assistant Commissioner], that they came to know about the continuation of the name of B.K. Muniyappa in the revenue records only when the appellants herein got their name entered in the revenue records. They have stated that Nanjappa had no occasion to obtain the RTC after he purchased the subject property. This aspect is in no way rebutted by the appellants before the Assistant Commissioner. 11. In that view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. 12. The Assistant Commissioner [respondent No.2] and the Deputy Commissioner [respondent No.1] have rightly decided the matter directing entry of the names of respondent Nos.4 to 7 in the revenue records in respect of the subject property. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35030-DB WA No. 651 of 2025 13. Hence, the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 14. Pending application is disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24