- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8167 WP No. 16086 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.16086 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI.K.T.KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT SANTHRUPTHI NAGAR NO.48, 1ST MAIN SRINEEVASANAGARA KITHAGAMMU MAIN ROAD K.R PURAM BENGALURU - 36. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.GOWTHAMDEV C ULLAL.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 3RD GATE, 5TH FLOOR MS BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU - 560001 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA-562159 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562159 Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8167 WP No. 16086 of 2024 4. THE TAHSILDAR RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-56219 5. SMT.P.GEETHA W/O POTHEGOWDA MAJOR R/AT NO.790, 9TH A MAIN INDRANAGARA, 1ST STAGE C.M.H. ROAD BENGALURU -560038 6. SRI.POUTHEGOWDA S/O LINGEGOWDA MAJOR R/AT NO.790, 9TH A MAIN ROAD INDRANAGARA, 1ST STAGE OCMH ROAD BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU -560038 …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 ORDER DATED 10.02.2023 MR.NO.13/2002-03 VIDE 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8167 WP No. 16086 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity and legality of the orders passed by the revenue authorities, namely, respondent No.4 – Tahsildar, respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner contends that he is the absolute owner of the subject property, having acquired valid title through an Exchange Deed. Relying on this Exchange Deed, he asserts that the orders of the revenue authorities are unsustainable in law. However, despite his ownership claims, the revenue authorities have proceeded to pass adverse orders against him, prompting him to seek judicial intervention through the present writ petition. 2. The crux of the petitioner’s grievance lies in the mutation proceedings, where he attempted to assert his rights based on the Exchange Deed and a subsequent family partition. He contested the validity of the mutation - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8167 WP No. 16086 of 2024 entries made in favor of respondent No.5 and her husband, who had acquired the property through sale deeds. The revenue authorities, however, declined to accept the petitioner’s contentions, choosing instead to recognize and uphold the sale transactions executed in favor of respondent No.5 and her husband. Further, respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner, through his order as per Annexure-D, has not only endorsed the findings of the lower revenue authorities but has also relied on the judicial pronouncements made in O.S.No.671/2007, thereby reinforcing the stand taken against the petitioner. 3. Upon a meticulous examination of the records, it is evident that the dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents can be traced back to a complaint filed by the petitioner on 12.08.2015 before the Regional Commissioner (Revenue). This complaint, which is annexed as Annexure-S, marked the genesis of the present controversy. The prayer sought by the petitioner - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8167 WP No. 16086 of 2024 in the said complaint is of particular significance and is extracted herein for reference. "PRAYER For the reasons of stating facts in genuineness and the grounds made out by citing three Supreme Court judgments, it is humbly prayed in this Hon'ble authority to pas the appropriate order to the Sub-Registrar, Ramanagaram to cancel the sale deeds registered vide Registration Nos.1634/1993-94, 1635/1993-94 and 1636/1993-94 and to register the name of K.T.Krishnappa to these survey numbers and to pas the slip to prepare check list and also pass an order of cancellation of mutation by which 1 acre, 1 gunta properties in Survey No.178/1 and 178/2 to the name of L.Pothegowda and to pass the appropriate order in the circumstances of this compliant in the interest of justice and equity." 4. On examining the prayer, it is clearly evident that the petitioner, while lodging the complaint with the Regional Commissioner (Revenue), has strangely sought orders at the hands of the Revenue Officials to cancel the sale deeds obtained by the private respondents. Pursuant to the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the Revenue - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8167 WP No. 16086 of 2024 Authorities have held an enquiry and have found that the petitioner's grievance cannot be adjudicated under the mutation proceedings. This Court deems it fit to take cognizance of the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.93/2002 seeking injunction against the private respondent No.5 and her husband relating to the petition land. The competent Civil Court, while answering Issue No.1 in the Negative, has exhaustively dealt with the petitioner's right over the petition land. Para No.14 would be relevant and the same is culled out, which reads as under; "14. The burden of proving Issue No.1 lies on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed his affidavit by way of oral evidence. The plaint averments are all reaffirmed by PW.1 in his affidavit by way of oral evidence. PW.2 Papa Reddy has also filed his affidavit by way of oral evidence and he also states in his affidavit that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties. In support of the oral evidence, plaintiff has relied upon the documentary evidence. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that Item No.2 and 3 of the schedule properties were allotted to him in the partition took place in the family and he acquired Item No.1 of the schedule property through - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8167 WP No. 16086 of 2024 Exchange Deed under Ex.P1. Hence according to PW.1 he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties. Learned counsel for plaintiff argued that to evidence that Item No.2 of the schedule property was fallen to the share of plaintiff, which is evidenced under Ex.P3 i.e., the Mutation Register Extract. On the other hand, defendants denies that the said partition took place between the plaintiff and his brothers during the year 1985-86. According to defendants the plaintiff and his brothers have got divided their family properties during the year 1993 and in this regard MR.4/1993-94 has been accepted. In support of the contention of the defendants, they have also got exhibited the document as per Ex.D11, which discloses that after the partition took place between plaintiff and his brothers, Mutation has been accepted in MR.4/1993-94. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that even though he has sold the properties in favour of the defendants in suit survey numbers, he has retained the schedule properties in suit survey numbers. The defendants categorically denies that the plaintiff has retained any inch of land in suit survey numbers. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for plaintiff drawn the attention of the court to Ex.P3 to evidence that Item No.2 and 3 of the schedule properties were fallen to the share of the plaintiff along with other properties of the family. By gathering the contents of Ex.P3 i.e. Mutation Register Extract, it does not supports the contention of the plaintiff that the properties mentioned under Ex.P3 were fallen to his share under the alleged Partition, since Ex.P3 evidencing about the change of Khatha in the name of plaintiff herein on the basis of no objection submitted by - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8167 WP No. 16086 of 2024 the plaintiff's brothers and hence Khatha in respect of the entire properties of the family of plaintiff and his brothers, entered in the name of plaintiff. Therefore, I am of the considered view that certainly the contention of the plaintiff that the properties mentioned under Ex.P3, were fallen to his share in the alleged partition took place is a fact, which cannot be accepted at all. Further it is the contention of the plaintiff that Item No.1 of the schedule property is the portion retained by him after alienating the remaining portion of land in favour of the defendants. The above contention of the plaintiff is specifically denied by the defendants, since it is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff has not retained any inch of land in Item No. 1 of the schedule property i.e. suit Sy.No.264/2. According to plaintiff under Ex.P1, he got Item No.1 of the schedule property. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the Exchange Deed. By going through the contents of Ex.P1, it appears that in exchange to the properties, plaintiff acquired 2 acres 23 guntas in suit Sy.No.264/2 and 1 acre in Sy.No.265/2. This fact is also evidenced under Ex.P2 i.e. the Mutation Register Extract. Now the crucial point, which is before the court is whether the plaintiff still in possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties. By going through the contents of Ex.P1, it is very clear that in exchange to the properties, plaintiff got 1 acre of land in Sy.No.265/2 and 2 acres 23 guntas in Sy.No. 264/2 Hence, it is very clear that under Ex.P1, the plaintiff got in all 3 acres 23 guntas of land in Sy. No.265/2 and 264/2 respectively. This fact is also evidenced under Ex.P2 i.e. the Mutation Register Extract. From the very materials placed by the plaintiff, it is crystal clear that under Ex.P1 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8167 WP No. 16086 of 2024 plaintiff has got 3 acres 23 guntas in all in both survey numbers as mentioned above. By going through Ex.D1, it appears that on 3.6.1993 the plaintiff and his brothers have jointly sold 21 guntas of land in favour of 2nd defendant. Likewise under Ex.D7, the plaintiff and his brothers have sold 1 acre 2 guntas in favour of the 2nd defendant on 4.7.1994, as these two alienations are evidenced under Ex.D1 and D7 respectively. Further the contents of EX.D3 i.e. the Sale Deed, it also appears that the plaintiff's mother and other brothers sold 1 acre 2 guntas of land in suit Sy.No.265/2 in favour of the 1st defendant. By gathering the contents of Ex.D1, D3 and D7, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff, his other brothers and mother have sold the entire 3 acres 23 guntas comprising in both survey numbers i.e. Sy Nos 265/2 and 264/2. Hence, it is very clear that the plaintiff has not retained any inch of land in item No.1 of the schedule property. In the above circumstances, whatever the contention of the plaintiff, which is of no consequence, since the defendants have placed prima-facie and abundant materials on record by way of primary evidence under Ex D1, D3 and D7 to hold that they have purchased entire 3 acres 23, as mentioned guntas under Ex P1, which was acquired by the plaintiff through exchange." 5. The extracted portion from the judgment plays a crucial role in resolving the present dispute, as it comprehensively examines the petitioner’s claim over the petition land. The Civil Court, despite the suit being one - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8167 WP No. 16086 of 2024 for injunction simplicitor, was required to evaluate the documentary and oral evidence presented by both parties. Upon thorough scrutiny, the Trial Court found that the petitioner, along with his family members, including his mother, had alienated the petition land through multiple sale transactions. The findings of the Civil Court were not based on mere presumptions but were supported by substantial rebuttal evidence presented by respondent No.5 and her husband. The judgment explicitly negated the petitioner’s assertion that he had retained any portion of the petition land after the alleged partition and Exchange Deed. Consequently, the Court concluded that the petitioner no longer had any subsisting right, title, or interest over the property in question. 6. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that despite the petitioner’s repeated assertions regarding his ownership over the petition land, he has, till date, not challenged the validity of the registered sale deeds executed in favor of respondent No.5 and her husband, - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:8167 WP No. 16086 of 2024 Pothegowda. The Karnataka Land Revenue Act, particularly Section 128, imposes a mandatory obligation on the revenue authorities to effect a change in revenue records upon the acquisition of title through registered sale deeds. In other words, once an individual secures ownership of immovable property through a registered sale deed, the corresponding revenue entries must be mutated to reflect the change in ownership. In the present case, the revenue authorities have merely performed their statutory duty by recognizing and recording the names of respondent No.5 and her husband in the revenue records on the basis of their registered sale deeds. Thus, the petitioner’s challenge to the mutation proceedings lacks legal merit, as the mutation process is a mere administrative act flowing from the legal acquisition of title by the private respondents. 7. In the instant case, the revenue authorities have rightfully mutated the names of the private respondents in the revenue records, strictly adhering to the provisions of - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:8167 WP No. 16086 of 2024 the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The basis of this mutation was the registered sale deed obtained by respondent No.5 and her husband, which remains unchallenged to date. Moreover, the findings of the Civil Court in O.S.No.671/2007, which were reached after evaluating the documentary evidence and legal contentions of both parties, categorically held that respondent No.5 and her husband were the absolute owners of the petition land. The Court also took into account the sale deeds executed in their favor, which were duly marked as exhibits in the suit. These sale transactions, having been subjected to judicial scrutiny, further fortify the legitimacy of the revenue authorities' actions in effecting the mutation entries in favor of the private respondents. 8. In light of the adjudication of the petitioner’s claims in O.S.No.93/2002, it is evident that the petitioner no longer has any standing to contest the mutation proceedings. The records further establish that the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:8167 WP No. 16086 of 2024 petitioner had, in fact, challenged the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.93/2002 by preferring an appeal in R.A.No.84/2006. However, the Appellate Court, after a detailed re-examination of the evidence and legal contentions, dismissed the appeal through its judgment and decree dated 16.08.2008. Given that the petitioner’s claims over the petition land have been conclusively adjudicated at both the Trial Court and Appellate Court levels, there exists no justification for this Court to intervene in the matter. The petitioner’s attempt to re-litigate an issue that has already been settled through due judicial process cannot be permitted. In view of the foregoing, this Court finds no ground to grant any indulgence to the petitioner’s challenge against the mutation proceedings. The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9