- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8309 WP No. 2841 of 2025 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. 2841 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. BASAVARAJAPPA, SON OF LATE NANJUNDAPPA AND LATE PARVATHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KADUR B.DURGA HOBLI, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 523. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.P. MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, HOLALKERE TALUK, HOLALKERE - 577 526. 3. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, B. DURGA HOBLI, HOLALKERE TALUK - 577 526. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA) Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8309 WP No. 2841 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 5-8-2024 PASSED IN R.A.40/2024-25, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AS THE SAME IS IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW 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 petitioner is assailing the order of respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-A, who has issued an endorsement and refused to exercise appellate jurisdiction conferred under section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The said endorsement is under challenge. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner's mother, namely, Parvathamma, purchased 2 acres 38 guntas of land belonging to one - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8309 WP No. 2841 of 2025 Patel Halappa S/o Earappa. The petitioner asserts that the said Patel Halappa, for his legal necessity, sold the property to the petitioner's mother under a registered sale deed dated 29.06.1948. The petitioner asserts that, due to illiteracy and lack of awareness, his mother failed to get her name mutated to the petition land though sale deed was secured in 1948. 4. The petitioner, to substantiate his mother's title apart from the sale deed, has placed reliance on Khethvaru Patrike, Patta book and Karda book, which are evidenced vide Annexure-B, C, D and E. The petitioner asserts that after the death of his mother, he applied for change of pavati katha. The petitioner, having noticed that some strangers' names are reflected to the petition land contrary to the EC, sale deed, Khethvaru Patrike, Patta book and Karda book, preferred an appeal before respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner under section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'Act'). The memorandum of appeal filed under section - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8309 WP No. 2841 of 2025 49(a) of the Act before respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner is produced, which is evidenced as Annexure-M. 5. Learned AGA, while contesting this petition, would point out that unless phodi/hissa proceedings pertaining to Sy.No.60 are challenged and set aside in the manner known to law, respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner was justified in issuing an endorsement. 6. Upon a thorough examination of the records, particularly the title deed, which is annexed as Annexure- B, along with other crucial revenue documents such as the Khethvaru Patrike, Patta book, and Karda book, this Court finds that respondent No.1- Assistant Commissioner, has exhibited clear dereliction of duty in handling the present case. When an appeal is filed in the prescribed form under Section 49 of the Act, it is incumbent upon the Assistant Commissioner, as the appellate authority, to conduct a detailed and careful scrutiny of all relevant records before arriving at any decision. However, in the instant case, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8309 WP No. 2841 of 2025 respondent No.1 has failed to discharge this statutory obligation and has instead issued a cryptic endorsement, which is wholly unsustainable in law. The appellate authority cannot simply dismiss an appeal in a cursory manner without engaging in an in-depth examination of the title documents and the revenue records that have been generated at an undisputed point in time. The failure to do so constitutes a serious lapse on the part of respondent No.1, which has prejudiced the legitimate claim of the petitioner. 7. The contention raised by the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) that the petitioner is not entitled to have his name mutated by way of inheritance khata unless the phodi proceedings are challenged is entirely misconceived and legally untenable. Although the documents produced at Annexures-J, J-1, and J-2 indicate that Sy.No.60 has undergone hissa proceedings, this does not preclude the competent authority from independently assessing whether the petitioner has a rightful claim to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8309 WP No. 2841 of 2025 have his name mutated in the RTC by way of inheritance khata. The records demonstrate that the petitioner’s mother had lawfully acquired ownership over an extent of 2 acres and 38 guntas, as evidenced by the title deed furnished at Annexure-B. Given this factual position, respondent No.1, as the appellate authority, was duty- bound to scrutinize this title document in conjunction with other public records, such as the Khethvaru Patrike, Patta book, and Karda book, which are essential in determining the petitioner's claim over the disputed land. 8. Moreover, the phodi proceedings concerning Sy.No.60/1 would, at best, be a matter to be addressed in the appeal process. If it is established that the rightful owners of Sy.No.60/1 had executed a registered sale deed as early as the year 1948, it was imperative for respondent No.1 to examine the implications of such transactions, particularly in relation to the revenue records and the title document obtained by the petitioner's mother. The failure to undertake such an exercise has - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8309 WP No. 2841 of 2025 resulted in an arbitrary and unjust rejection of the petitioner's claim. 9. Instead of adhering to the statutory mandate and conducting a comprehensive inquiry, the appellate authority has issued a vague and ambiguous endorsement, which does not align with the legal provisions enshrined under Section 54, read with Sections 128 and 129 of the Act. The law demands that revenue authorities exercise due diligence in claims based on registered documents. However, in this case, there is a glaring inaction on the part of respondent No.1, who has not only failed to assess the petitioner's claim in a legally sound manner but has also issued an endorsement (Annexure-A) that is entirely devoid of reasoning and legal basis. 10. Given these circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that the endorsement issued by respondent No.1 is legally unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. The matter requires a fresh consideration, wherein respondent - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8309 WP No. 2841 of 2025 No.1 must examine the title deed and all relevant revenue records before arriving at a well-reasoned decision in accordance with law. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed; ii. The impugned order dated 05.08.2024, passed by respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner, as per Annexure-A, is hereby quashed and set aside; iii. The matter stands remitted back to respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner; iv. Respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner shall take cognizance of the sale deed, Khethvaru Patrike, Patta book and Karda book obtained by the petitioner's mother as well as the spot mahazer, which are evidenced at Annexure-J, J- 1 and J-2 and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law; - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8309 WP No. 2841 of 2025 v. This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order; vi. Since petitioner is represented by counsel, he shall appear before respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner without expecting any further notice on 19.03.2025. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26 CT: BHK