- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8263 WP No. 37675 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.37675 OF 2016 (KLR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.KRISHNAPPA K.M.R S/O LATE K.M.MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 2. SMT.CHANDRAMMA K.M W/O SRI K.M.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 3. SMT.K.M.PARVATHAMMA D/O LATE K.M.MUNIYAPPA W/O SRI.T.V.VENKATARAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT MALLURU VILLAGE AND POST JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI SIDALAGATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA -562 102 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. A CHANDRA CHUD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PRINCIPLE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8263 WP No. 37675 of 2016 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101 3. THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562101 4. THE TAHSILDAR SIDALAGATTA TALUK SIDALAGATTA - 562102 5. THE SURVEYOR SIDALAGATTA TALUK SIDALAGATTA-562102 6. SMT.BHYRAMMA W/O SRI MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT BATTRENAHALLI VILLAGE MALLURU POST VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 102 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.J.N.NAVEEN, ADVOCATE FOR R.6; SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.02.2016 PASSED BY R-2 IN SURVEY REVISION PETITION NO.3/2014-15 AT ANNEX-X ALONG WITH THE ORDER DATED 05.06.2014 PASSED BY THE R-3 IN SURVEY APPEAL NO.5/2013-14 AT ANNEX-T AND ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8263 WP No. 37675 of 2016 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 petitioners are assailing the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-X and the order dated 05.06.2014 passed by respondent No.3 - Deputy Director of Land Records as per Annexure-T. 2. The subject matter of the petition is an agricultural land bearing Sy. No.21/2 measuring to an extent of 20 guntas. The petitioners contend that pursuant to the direction issued by the Joint Director of Land Records, the Assistant Director of Land Records in terms of the partition between the petitioners' family and vendor of respondent No.6 effected fresh phodi and assigned new survey number. The petitioners contend that the Assistant Director of Land Records in terms of the partition deed, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8263 WP No. 37675 of 2016 re-assigned Sy. No.21/2 insofar as petitioners' portion is concerned, which measures 20 guntas. 3. Assailing the order vide Annexure-M, respondent No.6, who is the purchaser, challenged the phodi undertaken by the Assistant Director of Land Records before respondent No.3 - the Deputy Director of Land Records. Respondent No.3 - Deputy Director of Land Records has set-aside the phodi and matter was remitted back to the Assistant Director of Land Records. This order was challenged before respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner. Respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner has confirmed the remand order passed by respondent No.3 - Deputy Director of Land Records. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S. No.111/2014. Notably, respondent No.6 has not raised any serious objection to the said judgment. This Court has examined the matter to assess the validity of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8263 WP No. 37675 of 2016 the phodi carried out by the Assistant Director of Land Records, as reflected in Annexure-M. In this regard, the Court considers it appropriate to extract paragraph No.13 of the judgment in O.S. No.111/2014, which is as follows: "13. That apart, on perusal of Ex.P19 it is noticed by this court that on 24.05.2001 the said K.M.Munishamappa and K.M.Muniyappa entered into unregistered partition deed and in the said partition the land in Sy. No. 21/2, measuring to an extent of 30 guntas got allotted in favour of K.M.Munishamappa and in the same Sy. No. remaining 20 guntas got allotted in favour of K.M.Muniyappa. The schedule got mentioned to said 20 guntas of land is East by land of Narayanappa, West by land of Kempanna, by land North by land of Pillanarayanappa and K.M.Munishamappa and South by land of Kachahalli Reddy. On perusal of the Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 it is noticed by this court that, the said K.M.Muniyappa has purchased suit schedule property from K.M.Munishamappa for consideration of Rs.90,000/- on 27.01.2011 and the schedule mentioned in the said Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are similar to the extent of 20 guntas got mentioned in Ex.P19. As per Ex.P2 the katha of the suit property to an extent of 20 guntas in Sy. No. 21/2 is standing in the name K.M.Muniyappa." 5. Upon a closer scrutiny of the adjudication process and the judgment rendered by the Civil Court, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8263 WP No. 37675 of 2016 particularly the observations made in paragraph No.13, it becomes evidently clear that the Partition Deed, which has been produced as Exhibit P.10, has been upheld by the Civil Court. The Civil Court, after a thorough examination of the boundaries described in the Partition Deed, has arrived at a categorical finding that the land in question, measuring 20 guntas, is duly substantiated by the petitioners. The Court has explicitly recognized that the schedule of the property, as described in the Partition Deed, aligns with the physical demarcation of the land. Based on this finding, the Trial Court proceeded to decree the suit filed by the petitioners, and by its judgment and decree dated 31.01.2025, declared that the petitioners have successfully established their claim over the said extent of land. Consequently, the Trial Court affirmed their ownership rights over the 20 guntas of land with definitive and legally recognized boundaries. 6. Furthermore, both learned counsel representing the respective parties unequivocally acknowledge that - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8263 WP No. 37675 of 2016 Annexure-M has been prepared in strict conformity with the terms set forth in the Partition Deed. It is pertinent to note that this very Partition Deed formed the subject matter of the suit initiated by the petitioners in O.S.No.111/2014. After due consideration, the Trial Court has upheld the Partition Deed, and accordingly, decreed the suit in favor of the petitioners. As a result of this decree, the petitioners have been judicially recognized as the absolute owners of the 20 guntas of land, with their ownership rights confirmed by the Civil Court. Additionally, the Civil Court has verified and upheld the specific boundaries outlined in the Partition Deed, affirming that they correspond precisely with the schedule of the property. The allocation of land to the petitioners, as reflected in the phodi conducted by the Assistant Director of Land Records documented in Annexure-M demonstrates a clear and consistent alignment with the boundaries specified in the Partition Deed, which was marked as Exhibit P.19 in the suit. This further reinforces the legitimacy of the petitioners’ claim - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8263 WP No. 37675 of 2016 and the correctness of the land division as per the legal proceedings. 7. In view of the decree obtained by the petitioners, the remand order passed by respondent No.3 - Deputy Director of Land Records is unsustainable. If the portion allotted to the petitioners and vendor of respondent No.6 in terms of the Partition Deed is upheld by the Civil Court, there cannot be any fresh phodi unless the judgment and decree rendered by the Civil Court in O.S.No.111/2014 is disturbed by the competent Appellate Court. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 29.02.2016 passed by respondent No.2 in Survey Revision Petition No.03/2014-15 at Annexure-X and the order dated - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8263 WP No. 37675 of 2016 05.06.2014 passed by respondent No.3 in Survey Appeal No.05/2013-14 at Annexure-T are hereby quashed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1