- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7103 WP No. 556 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 556 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. BABA JAAN, SON OF LATE ABDUL RAHMAN, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3, RESIDING AT WARD NO.16, KOTE KUNIGAL TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOPI P.M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT OFFICE COMPLEX, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR SUB-DIVISION, TUMKUR - 572 101. 4. THE TAHSILDAR KUNIGAL TALUK, KUNIGAL, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7103 WP No. 556 of 2025 TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 130. 5. PROPERTY MANAGER CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIAN KCD-20 3RD CROSS, CST COMPOUND, BANGALORE - 560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 ND 227 FOF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ORDER QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 IN CASE NO.RRT.DIS.CR.703/2021-22, NO.4 IN CASE DATED 14.06.2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-K AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN R.A. (KUN) 927/2023 DATED 19.09.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-L AND THE ORDER OF RP.NO. 167/2023, PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.10.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-N 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 captioned petition is file, feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the revenue authorities in deleting the petitioner's name from the cultivators column. Therefore, an appeal was filed before respondent No.3- - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7103 WP No. 556 of 2025 Assistant Commissioner, questioning the deletion of the petitioner's name from the cultivators column. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP. Perused the record. 3. The Respondent No. 3 – Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 25.02.2022 (Annexure-G), allowed the appeal and directed Respondent No. 4 – Tahsildar to mutate the petitioner’s name in the “Other Rights” column. Pursuant to this order, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Tahsildar. However, Respondent No. 4, through Annexure-K, declined the request for mutation. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner, however, issued an endorsement (Annexure-N) refusing to entertain the appeal, citing that the matter had already been decided in the petitioner’s favor and no further orders were necessary. Consequently, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7103 WP No. 556 of 2025 Revenue Act, 1964, before Respondent No. 2 – Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, considering that the petitioner’s claim was already pending before the court in W.P. No. 24408/2023, declined to intervene and dismissed the revision. 4. The petitioner is asserting possessory rights over the disputed property. A review of the records reveals that the petitioner has already initiated a comprehensive suit seeking a declaration of ownership through adverse possession, which is currently pending as O.S. No. 118/2023. The relief sought in the suit is relevant to the present matter, and the prayer from the suit is as follows: "WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass a judgement and Decree against the Defendants herein: a) for declaration, declaring that the Plaintiff has perfected his title by way of adverse possession over the suit schedule property, b) for consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the Defendants from causing illegal interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule property in any manner, and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7103 WP No. 556 of 2025 c) For costs and such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." 5. The core issue for consideration is whether the petitioner’s claim of possessory rights can be adjudicated by the revenue authorities when the matter is already under consideration before a competent civil court in O.S. No. 118/2023. The petitioner, by his own admission, is asserting title through adverse possession and claims to have perfected ownership based on this principle. However, the plea of adverse possession raises a disputed question of fact that requires thorough examination and adjudication by the competent civil court, rather than the revenue authorities. 6. In view of the ongoing suit, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner was ill-advised to pursue remedies before the revenue authorities. Despite the pendency of a comprehensive civil suit where the petitioner, as the plaintiff, has sought to establish ownership rights, he has continued to seek parallel - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7103 WP No. 556 of 2025 recourse through the revenue courts. This Court holds that the petitioner’s alleged possessory rights cannot be substantiated or adjudicated through mutation proceedings alone. 7. Furthermore, under Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the revenue authorities lack the jurisdiction to examine claims of possessory rights. Should the petitioner’s name have been unlawfully removed from the cultivator’s column, his remedy lies in the outcome of the pending civil suit in O.S. No. 118/2023. If the petitioner successfully establishes his title through adverse possession in the civil court, the natural consequence will be the recognition of his rights by the revenue authorities. This would entitle him not only to have his name mutated in Column No. 9 (ownership column) but also to have his name reflected in the cultivator’s column. 8. In light of the pending suit, the petitioner’s present claim before the revenue authorities is premature. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7103 WP No. 556 of 2025 Therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to pursue his legal remedies in the civil court proceedings to establish his rights conclusively. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26 CT: BHK