- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8202 WP No. 3516 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. 3516 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. H.M. MANJUNATH, S/O H.K. MAHALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT AMALAPURA, ARAKERE POST, KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK - 572 106. 2. SRI. BABU RAJENDRAPRASAD, S/O H.K. MAHALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT AMALAPURA, ARAKERE POST, KASABA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK - 572 106. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKURU DISTRICT, TUMKURU - 572 101. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TUMKURU SUB DIVISION, TUMKURU - 572 101. Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8202 WP No. 3516 of 2024 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TUMKURU TALUK, TUMKURU - 572 101. 4. SRI. KUNDARANAHALLI RAMESH FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED MAJOR, PRESIDENT, DEVELOPMENT REVALUATION FORUM 1ST MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGARA EAST LAYOUT, SHETTIHALI MAIN ROAD, TUMKUR - 572 102. 5. SRI. VISHWANATH, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED MAJOR PRESIDENT, TUMKUR SCIENCE CENTRE, TUMKUR - 572 106. 6. DR. HOLATHALU SIDDAGANGAIAH, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED MAJOR, M G ROAD, ADARSHA PARISARA TRUST, YELLAPURA, TUMKURU - 572 106. 7. SRI. M S RUDRAMURTHY FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED MAJOR, 15TH CROSS, S S PURAM, TUMKURU - 570 009. 8. SRI NAGARAJ RAO FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AGED MAJOR, ARAKERE, ARAKERE POST, TUMKURU - 572 106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; R4, R6, R8 SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 11.09.2024 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R5 AND R7 ARE DISPENSED WITH) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8202 WP No. 3516 of 2024 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT, QUASHING ORDERS DATED 23.09.2013 IN LND.CR. 159/12-13 PASSED BY THE R-2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-R 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 filed assailing the order of the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, vide Annexure-R and confirmed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, vide Annexure-S. 2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. The short point that needs consideration is as to whether respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, while entertaining a complaint lodged by private respondents, could have altered the well-settled entries in the RTC - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8202 WP No. 3516 of 2024 pertaining to the petition land bearing Sy.No.12 measuring 8 acres 20 guntas and Sy.No.33 (renumbered as new Sy.No.47) measuring 8 acres 4 guntas, situated at Amalapura village, Kasaba hobli, Tumkur, Arakere, Tumkuru taluk. 4. Respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, while entertaining the complaint, has come to the conclusion that these petition lands are owned by the government and therefore ordered to delete the names of the petitioners from the ownership column. This order is confirmed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner. The issue on hand will not detain this court for long in the light of the findings recorded by the competent civil court in a suit for injunction simplicitor filed in O.S.No.480/2013. 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior counsel, paragraphs No. 43 and 44 of the said judgment would clinch the entire controversy between the parties. This Court deems it fit to cull out paragraphs No.43 and 44 of O.S.No.480/2023, which reads as under: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8202 WP No. 3516 of 2024 "43. Even though entire village of Amalapura is purchased by plaintiffs but in Sy.No.12, 33 and 31 in column No.9 the word Sarkari kere and kharab is mentioned. In order to rectify the same the H.M.Divyanandamurthy approached learned Tahsildar. The learned Tahsildar in LND.CR.50/1991-1992 by considering the title deeds of plaintiffs and the auction which is taken place on 01.11.1951 has ordered to remove the word Sarkari kere and directed to insert the word Katte. Accordingly, as per M.R.3/1991-1992 the word Sarkari kere is removed and katte is inserted and accordingly the RTCs were generated. From the order of Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy URT OF Commissioner it is very clear that they have admitted the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and in every order the defendants have mentioned how the plaintiffs have acquried the suit schedule property. 44. The conservator of forests has also filed petition and appeal before the Learned Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner for plantation in Sy.No.12, 31 and 33. But learned Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner has ordered that property in Sy.No.12.31 and 33 of Amalapura village is cultivated by H.M.Divyanandamurthy and the said land are not included in class C and D. In the said orders also the defendants have discussed how the plaintiffs have acquired the suit schedule property and orders itself shows the admission of possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property including Sy.No. 12, 31 and 33. When the plaintiffs have filed this suit the defendants have created Ex.D5 and ExD3 on the same day without any documents and without any reasoning in the order that how the property in Sy.No. 12. 31 and 32 belongs to the government. One of the important point to be noted is that in RTC for Sy.No. 12, 31 and 33 there is no land in A kharab and B kharab. No single document produced by the government to show that suit schedule property belongs to government. The documents of the plaintiffs - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8202 WP No. 3516 of 2024 shows the flow of title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and it reveals long possession of the plaintiffs. The entries in RTC's entered by the defendants is baseless without any documents. In catena of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that baseless entry cannot be entertained. The order which is passed by defendants is Ex.D5 and D3 are the baseless orders without any documents. That orders passed during the pendency of present civil suit in order to grab the property of the plaintiffs. Therefore, on perusal of all the documents and conduct of the defendants it clearly appears to this Court that plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule survey numbers properties and government is nothing to do with the property of the plaintiffs since plaintiffs have purchased the suit schedule property and proved the long possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property by producing cogent documents. Hence, in touch stone of reasons assigned above, this Court has answered Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.” 6. On closure examination of the findings recorded by the competent civil court, this Court is of the view that while the court was called upon to decide the possessory rights, the civil court, in the course of its full-fledged enquiry, has incidently touched upon the title; while doing so, the civil court has not only examined the petitioners right over the petition land but has gone to the extent of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8202 WP No. 3516 of 2024 holding that the orders passed by the revenue officials are baseless and are not supported by title documents. 7. A meticulous examination of the observations recorded by the trial court in paragraph No. 44 reveals a clear and unequivocal finding that the petitioners are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Furthermore, the court has categorically held that the respondent-State does not possess even a semblance of right, title, or interest over the disputed land. While arriving at this conclusion, the trial court specifically noted that the State has failed to produce any supporting documents to substantiate its claim or to contest the petitioners’ title and possession. 8. Although it is a well-settled principle of law that, in a suit for injunction, the question of title is generally not the primary subject of determination, an exception arises when a competent civil court is required to assess possessory rights. In such cases, if the court, in the course of its adjudication, records findings on the issue - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8202 WP No. 3516 of 2024 of title while determining possession, these findings acquire significant legal weight. Consequently, such determinations are not merely incidental but have a binding effect on the revenue authorities, thereby precluding them from disputing the title and possession of the petitioners at a later stage. 9. In the light of findings recorded by the civil court, the orders passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, as per Annexure-R and confirmed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, as per Annexure- S are not sustainable in the light of adjudication by the civil court. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed; ii. The orders passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, as per Annexure-R and confirmed by respondent No.1-Deputy - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8202 WP No. 3516 of 2024 Commissioner, as per Annexure-S are hereby quashed and set aside; iii. Respondent No.3-Tahasildar, is hereby directed to forthwith take cognizance of the judgment rendered by the civil court in O.S.No.480/2023, judgment and decree dated 27.04.2024; iv. Respondent No.3-Tahasildar, by acting under section 135 read with section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, shall forthwith restore the petitioners name to the petition land; v. This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of order copy. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT: BHK