- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6961 WP No. 25625 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 25625 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. HANUMANTHAKUMAR S/O LATE PATALAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 2. SRI. NAGARAJAU S/O LATE PATALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 3. SRI. NAGESH S/O PATALAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 4. SRI. SRINIVAS S/O LATE PATALAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT DODDABELE VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 586 123. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANJAY G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6961 WP No. 25625 of 2024 REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, ATTACHED TO THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 002. 3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, ATTACHED TO THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 560 002. 4. SRI. GURUMURTHY, S/O LATE CHIKKAGURUVAPPA @ GURUVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 5. SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE CHIKKAGURUVAPPA @ GURUVAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 6. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAGURUVAPPA @ GURUVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 7. SRI. GOVINDAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAGURUVAPPA @ GURUVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 4 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT DODDABELE VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 586 123. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6961 WP No. 25625 of 2024 8. UMASHANKAR S/O L.C. RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 26 'D' CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, BYATARYANAPURA, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 026. 9. SRI. T.R. KIRAN KUMAR, S/O T. RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO. 3601, 8TH CROSS, GAYATHIRNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 021. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R9) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH ANNEXURE-A THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2024 IN RP 151/2024 ISSUED BY R- 2 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 This captioned petition is filed assailing the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed on interlocutory application. Under the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner has vacated the interim order . - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6961 WP No. 25625 of 2024 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 3 and learned counsel for private respondents No.4 to 9. Perused the records. 3. The petitioners, who represent late Patalappa @ Patalaiah branch, assailing the order of the Assistant Commissioner, have preferred a revision under section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The private respondents No.4 to 7 are tracing their right through registered partition deed dated 18.08.1977, which is evidenced at Annexure-R4(B). The private respondents No.4 to 7, who represent the branch of late Chikkaguruvappa @ Guruvaiah, are asserting that Sy.No.28/1, totally measuring 6 acres 9 guntas, was allotted to Guruvaiah's share under the registered partition deed. Therefore, private respondents No.4 to 7 contend that they have sold 4 acres 21 guntas to one Smt. Priyadarshini under a registered sale deed dated 20.12.2007 and 14 guntas to one Smt. Gomathy under a - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6961 WP No. 25625 of 2024 registered sale deed dated 18.04.2005 and claim that they have retained the remaining portion of 1 acre 16 guntas. The private respondents, having noticed that the purchasers names were though mutated in the RTC, an access extent of 10 guntas was reflected in the RTC. While the purchasers' extent was only 1 acre 16 guntas, however, in the RTC instead of 1 acre 2 guntas, it is wrongly shown as 1 acre 12 guntas, which is evidenced at Annexure-R4 to the statement of objections. Therefore, the legal heirs of Guruvaiah, i.e., private respondents No.4 to 7, preferred an appeal under section 136(2) of the Act and sought rectification of extent. They contended that they had sold only 1 acre 2 guntas to one Gurumurthy and retained 1 acre 02 guntas and therefore, by way of an appeal, private respondents No.4 to 7, who are legal heirs of Guruvaiah, sought a reduction of extent strictly aligning with the mutation certified under MR.No.39/2010-11. 4. The Assistant Commissioner, after carefully considering the registered partition deed and the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6961 WP No. 25625 of 2024 alienation carried out by private respondents No.4 to 7, accepted their contention and proceeded to issue necessary directions to rectify the extent of land. As per the rectification, the land measurement was corrected from 1 acre 12 guntas to 1 acre 02 guntas. This decision was taken in response to the request made by private respondents No.4 to 7, who acknowledged the extent of land sold by them, aligning it with the registered partition deed dated 18.08.1977. However, despite not being directly affected by this rectification, the petitioners, who represent the branch of Patalaiah, chose to file a revision petition. Their grievance, however, appears unfounded, as the rectification merely reflects the correct extent of land as per the registered records. When queried, learned counsel for the petitioners confirmed that a written statement had been filed in the pending suit bearing O.S. No.590/2024. However, learned counsel for the private respondents brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners filed the written statement and counterclaim only when the matter was adjourned by this court, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6961 WP No. 25625 of 2024 indicating a possible afterthought rather than a genuine and immediate grievance against the rectification order. 5. Furthermore, in their counterclaim, the petitioners have now raised a dispute regarding the sale deed executed by private respondents No.4 to 7 in favor of respondents No.8 and 9. This aspect adds another layer of complexity to the matter, as it involves challenging an already executed sale transaction. It is pertinent to note that the rectification carried out by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner was purely administrative in nature and was done at the behest of private respondents No.4 to 7. The correction simply brought the recorded extent in line with the registered partition deed, ensuring accuracy in land records. The petitioners’ challenge to this rectification is perplexing, especially since their counterclaim relies on an unregistered document, whereas the private respondents have based their claims on a legally recognized registered partition deed. The apparent contradiction in the petitioners' stance further emphasis - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6961 WP No. 25625 of 2024 the necessity for a civil court to adjudicate the matter comprehensively. Given the complexity of the dispute and the existence of a pending civil suit, this Court finds that the revision petition filed before the Deputy Commissioner is misconceived. Instead of pursuing parallel proceedings, the petitioners should be directed to exhaust their legal remedies within the ongoing civil suit, where they have already filed a counterclaim. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to relegate the petitioners to pursue their remedies within the framework of the civil court proceedings, which are the proper forum for adjudicating such intricate issues of title and alienation. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 CT: BHK