- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8204 WP No. 15703 of 2023 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. 15703 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. JAYARAMEGOWDA. B S/O LATE SRI. B M BYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O GANGAVARA CHOWDAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VEERAYYA HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 110. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA - 561 203. Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8204 WP No. 15703 of 2023 4. THE TAHASILDHAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 5. SMT. SAKAMMA W/O LATE SRI POOJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O GANGAVARA CHOWDAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 135. 6. SRI. ANAND S/O LATE SRI, DALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O GANGAVARA CHOWDAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 135 7. SRI. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE SRI. DALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O GANGAVARA CHOWDAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 135. 8. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE SRI DALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O GANGAVARA CHOWDAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 135. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8204 WP No. 15703 of 2023 9. SRI. BASAVARAJU S/O LATE SRI DALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O GANGAVARA CHOWDAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 135. 10. SRI. APPOLI, S/O LATE SRI POOJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O GANGAVARA CHOWDAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 135. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. K. SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R7; R5, R6, R9, R10 ARE SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 18.02.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R8 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2023 IN REVISION PETITION NO.123/2018 PASSED BY R-2 AS PER ANNX-P AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER DATED ORDER DATED 11.07.2018 PASSED BY R-3 IN RA (DH) 93/2017 AS PER ANNX-N BY ISSUE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8204 WP No. 15703 of 2023 ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed assailing the orders of respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner, vide Annexure-P and N. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 4 and learned counsel for private respondents No.5 to 10. Perused the record. 3. The short point that falls for consideration is as to whether the private respondents No.5 to 10 have locus to contest this petition in the light of judgment rendered by the civil court in O.S.No.243/2017. The petitioner is asserting that his father, namely, B.M.Byrappa, had purchased the entire extent from private respondents’ ancestors under a registered sale deed dated 14.05.1953. Under the said document, the land which is alleged to have been conveyed is Sy.No.164/2B, measuring *2 acres 23 guntas, situated at Gangavara Chowdappanahalli village. The private respondents in 2016 approached * Corrected vide chamber order dated 7.3.2025 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8204 WP No. 15703 of 2023 respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, challenging the mutation. The said appeal is entertained and allowed by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner. Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner has directed to mutate the names of the private respondents. This order is confirmed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner. 4. Records reveal that the private respondents filed a comprehensive suit in O.S.No.243/2017. This court deems it fit to cull out the issues filed in O.S.No.243/2017. "1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they are the absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, the defendant is trying to interfere with the suit schedule property? 3. Whether the defendant proves that, the plaintiffs' grandfather, Poojiga @ Poojappa had alienated the suit schedule property in favour of the father of the defendant through a sale deed dated 14.05.1953? 4. Whether the defendant proves that, the suit schedule properties were divided between the defendant and others by virtue of the compromise decree in O.S.No. 387/2016? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as sought for? 6. What order or decree?" - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8204 WP No. 15703 of 2023 5. Issues Nos. 1 to 3 hold significant relevance in this case. The private respondents, as plaintiffs, instituted the suit seeking a declaration of absolute ownership over the suit schedule property. However, after careful evaluation of the evidence presented, the competent civil court conclusively determined that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their claim of absolute ownership. Consequently, Issue No. 1 was decided against them, and their assertion of possession over the suit schedule property was also dismissed under Issue No. 2. The court's negative findings on these two issues effectively weakened the private respondents claim. 6. Issue No. 3, however, is crucial, as it directly pertains to the subject matter of the present petition. The crux of this issue was whether the plaintiffs' grandfather, Poojiga @ Poojappa,(grandfather of private Respondents) had alienated the suit schedule property in favor of the defendant’s father(petitioner’s father) through a registered sale deed dated 14.05.1953. Upon scrutinizing the rebuttal - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8204 WP No. 15703 of 2023 evidence presented by the defendant (present petitioner), the civil court answered this issue in the affirmative. The court's reasoning was based on documentary proof and supporting evidence, which established that the petitioner's predecessor in title had lawfully acquired the property through the sale deed executed in 1953. This finding significantly impacts the current dispute, as it substantiates the petitioner's rightful claim over the property and negates the assertions made by the private respondents. 7. It is rather unusual that private respondents No. 5 to 10 are now attempting to challenge and undermine the judgment rendered by the competent civil court in subsequent proceedings. The present writ petition is being pursued before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which confers only a limited supervisory jurisdiction. This Court does not have the authority to re-evaluate or overturn the findings of a competent civil court, especially when such findings have - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8204 WP No. 15703 of 2023 been arrived at after due consideration of the evidence on record. The adjudication by the civil court, coupled with the existence of a duly registered sale deed dating back to 14.05.1953 in favor of the petitioner's predecessor, leaves little room for interference by revenue authorities. 8. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by respondent No. 3 - Assistant Commissioner and respondent No. 2 - Deputy Commissioner are legally unsustainable, as they overlook the binding effect of the civil court's judgment. Given that the suit filed by the private respondents has been dismissed, respondent No. 4 - Tahsildar is obligated to take cognizance of the civil court's findings and act in accordance with the law. As a consequence, the petitioner's name must be restored in the relevant revenue records, ensuring compliance with the judgment rendered by the competent court. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8204 WP No. 15703 of 2023 9. For the foregoing reasons, this court passes the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed; ii. The orders passed by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner, vide Annexure-P and N are quashed and set aside; iii. Respondent No.4-Tahasildar is hereby directed to forthwith restore the petitioner’s name to the petition land; iv. However, it is made clear that restoration of the petitioner’s name to the petition land will be subject to the out come of pending regular appeal. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT: BHK